« A Debate In Search of a ClueYour Tax Dollars At Work »

Operation Fig Leaf

To make the cold, hard facts of victory more palatable to defeatists, Bush craftily proposes to drape his winning plan in surrender clothing. NYT:    

WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 — The White House plans to use a report next month assessing progress in Iraq to outline a plan for gradual troop reductions beginning next year that would fall far short of the drawdown demanded by Congressional opponents of the war, according to administration and military officials.

One administration official made it clear that the goal of the planned announcement was to counter public pressure for a more rapid reduction and to try to win support for a plan that could keep American involvement in Iraq on “a sustainable footing” at least through the end of the Bush presidency.

The officials said the White House would portray its approach as a new strategy for Iraq, a message aimed primarily at the growing numbers of Congressional Republicans who have criticized President Bush’s handling of the war.

Ha ha, NYT humor!  What message is Bush going to aim at the growing numbers of Congressional Democrats who now say he’s doing something right in Iraq?  Well, I think we’ve just seen it.  It’s a figleaf to cover the nakedness of their admissions that winning may trump surrender.  Memo to NYT, etal.  You may want to go count heads on that growing number of Congressional Republicans who have criticized President Bush’s handling of the war. I suspect the sponginess factor of spineless resolve may be up.

More NYT humor here:

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of their reluctance to discuss internal White House deliberations publicly.

I would have thought discussing it with the New York Times pretty much was discussing it publicly.  After all, you and I are reading it, in our capacity as members of the public. I guess this oxymoronic source explainer is a subtle NYT way of saying “the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of their reluctance to discuss internal White House deliberations without bags on their heads.” But I digress …

“The surge, we all know, will end sometime in 2008, in the beginning of 2008, and we will begin probably a withdrawal of forces based on the surge,” Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the No. 2 officer in Iraq, said Friday. “We must consider the complexity of the threat and deliberately reduce our forces based on the situation on the ground as well as the capability of the Iraqi security forces.”

General Odierno said the five additional brigades added this year under the president’s troop increase were likely to be withdrawn on a timeline parallel to their arrival in Iraq. Under this timeline, which is not yet the official plan, the troop increase would end by April with the five brigades leaving Iraq one each month, with American force levels returning to the troop levels existing before the increase by next August, he said.

Central to the internal debate on a “postsurge” strategy is the extent to which American troops would be able to ask Iraqi forces to take the lead on security missions in critical sections of the country, particularly in Baghdad. Many Democrats in Congress, and even some Republicans, have demanded that Americans hand over more security missions to the Iraqis.

Although no decision has been made about the full extent of the American combat mission next year, administration officials and military officers say the troops in Iraq would shift priorities to training and supporting Iraq forces. They said the large contingent of Special Operations forces now in Iraq would continue missions to capture and kill terrorist and insurgent leaders, and to disrupt their networks.

In other words, Bush intends to propose what he was going to do anyway. Surge troops, look at conditions on the ground, and shift the focus of operations as circumstances allow.

Here’s a good kicker:

Most Congressional Democrats have already called for the withdrawal of all American combat forces from Iraq beginning early next year. “After nearly five years, a half-trillion dollars and over 3,700 American lives, it is long past time for a change of direction in Iraq,” the Senate’s Democratic majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said in a written statement this week.

Ha ha ha! More NYT humor?  The subtle irony of mocking Reid with his own tired broken-record pronouncements.  Get it? “After eight months and countless go-nowhere surrender votes, it is long past time for a change of direction in Congress.”

But surely NYT didn’t intend that to be funny.  The good scribblers of NYT buried Reid way at the end.  Once upon a time, you’d be reading that near the top. I sense NYT surrender enthusiasts, like the ones in Congress, are groping around for a way to get on the right side of this war thing before dread September comes barrelling in.  This article shines a klieg light down the path: Embrace victory, call it defeat!   

Captain’s Quarters:  ”A positive report from General David Petraeus will have made it difficult enough to insist on full retreat, and Brian Baird’s move from original war opponent to surge supporter will make it all but impossible. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid need a face-saving measure to allow Congress to continue funding the Iraq War effort, and calling a regular redeployment a victory for their side will probably suffice.”

Welcome, Instapundit, Pajamas, etal! Beautiful Saturday afternoon.  We’re hanging out back.  You know where the beer is.  I say, that she-devil is a saucy strumpet! But I can’t believe we paid all the money and all we got was two lousy t-shirts.  Talk about monkey business. Grab a clue, join the debate. Tune out with some vid, if you’d rather. Or just sit back and let Don, the best combat writer currently operating in Iraq, tell you a story.

Topics: Iraq, pols, media

  Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:03 am on Saturday, August 18, 2007

9 Responses to “Operation Fig Leaf”

1. Wake up America Says:
   August 18th, 2007 at 12:39 pm

   Iraqi’s Step Up, We Step Down Part #2

   TODAYS NYT article tries to spin it by implying that the troop reductions will be a reversal on Bush’s part instead of a natural reduction in the surge which was said at the time it was announced, it was temporary, to have the manpower to secure then…

2. tinknorati Says:
   August 18th, 2007 at 1:07 pm

   I think this new meme — “Democrats are trying to find a way to get in on the smashing success of the war in Iraq” — may be my favorite crazy Bush-cultist meme ever. To believe this, you have to forget that we’ve been hearing these same claims of “progress” for years, and the people who claim that there is no such thing as “progress” in Iraq are always right. (Yes, I’m linking to The Evil Sock Puppet. Therefore all the direct quotes in that article are like totally inaccurate.)

   I know why the Bush administration goes for this stuff; if Bush admitted that Al-Qaeda is a minor factor in Iraq, that conditions on the ground are no better than they’ve ever been, and that the only way for Iraq to get better is if we leave (and that the longer we wait to leave, the worse the bloodbath will be when we do leave), he’d have to admit that he failed. Bush would rather see America defeated — since the only real “defeat” is remaining in Iraq — than admit he was wrong; I understand that.

   And I understand Crittenden’s enthusiasm for American defeat and American death; if we leave Iraq, we’ll be safer and more secure, but fewer Muslims will be shot on a daily basis, and anyone who’s read Jules on a regular basis knows that he would rather see America defeated than see one more Muslim survive than necessary.

   But most importantly, the right has always been at war with liberals and Democrats. So the idea of keeping troops in Iraq, forcing Democrats to spend most of their time trying to find a way to stop the war (since this is in America’s national security interest, and the Democrats are the national security party) is OK with them; it’s a defeat for America to keep all these troops in Iraq, but that’s the point: defeating America — or the half of America that doesn’t agree with Bush — is the goal of the right. So while Crittenden and Bush know we can’t “win” in Iraq, staying in Iraq is a way to “win” against the evil Dhimmicrats. The fact that it’s in America’s national security interest to leave is irrelevant when you have declared war on America, which is what Bush and his cultists have done.

   Remember, more dead Americans are totally worth it if it bums out Democrats.

3. Purple Avenger Says:
   August 18th, 2007 at 2:53 pm

   In another 6 months the NYT will be saying they always thought the surge was a good idea.

4. Jack is Back Says:
   August 18th, 2007 at 3:56 pm

   In 6 Months the NYTs may not even exist. Have you checked out their financials lately. Layoffs are coming and where would you start. Hard news? Nope. Sports? Hardly. Arts and Enterainment? Its all revenue ads from Broadway. You’d start with Gail Collins and her half-witted eastern establishment elitists who can’t figure out where Mesopatamia is in regard to terror. They have no military training and let it show everyday. The only good thing going for the NYTs is the Sunday Crossword puzzle, the bi-monthly acrostic and Will Shortz’ editing. So far, the puzzle has been the least politicalized part of the paper. Even the sports guys have made comments about Bush, Cheney and the war in making analogies to baseball, boxing and basketball. You’d think a paper of record would have made analogies of Cheney at least in the outdoor column.

5. DrApplebreath Says:
   August 18th, 2007 at 3:58 pm

   So Chuck Hagel is on the Irony Narrative too! He’s gonna demand the White House and the Pentagon do what they have announced they’re gonna do!

   ““We’re going to demand we get whatever information we require,” the Republican senator said during a Lincoln interview.
   “We fully expect the leaders of our government will comply with their responsibility. We must have all the facts and details required to make intelligent decisions.”

   Ha! I get it.

   But Irony is best in small doses, after that it becomes parody, then religion, then political fanaticism - where it is Truth, of course.

   It appears that the episodes are all written for this season, so now is not the time to start believing your lying eyes. The poor NYT must be longing for the happy days when they ran Abu Ghraib on the front page every day for over five weeks. Ahhh, sweet memories of America’s shame, and now the poor things must occasionally mention some small successes in the news. How mortifying.

   Something that is not Ironic but is thankfully True is that beer can be in many, many places at once.

6. The_Real_JeffS Says:
   August 18th, 2007 at 5:10 pm

   Bush would rather see America defeated — since the only real “defeat” is remaining in Iraq — than admit he was wrong; I understand that.

   Folks, I think that we are looking at the first reaction from the Nutroots on the Democratic spin machine pointing away from unconditional surrender to the terrorists. A fine example of assertions, goal post moving, and BDS.

   Oddly enough, it’s an attempt to blame everything on Bush, and nothing on the Dhimmicrats who are frantically trying to cover their a$$ses, and failing to suck up to the Surrenderistas instead. Maybe the Nutroots are trying to stay tight with Pelosi and Reid by throwing them a very tiny life preserver? God knows there’s no way Kos will get elected into Congress for a fair number of years.

   No matter….tinknorati is a fine example of an imploding head. Enjoy!

7. Terrye Says:
   August 18th, 2007 at 5:16 pm

   tik:

   That was strange. I used to be a Democrat and believe it or not I supported the war because I thought Saddam Hussein was an evil mass murdering dictator. It was the Democrats who decided that when you have a Republican president on one side and the Butcher of Baghdad on the other, you back the Butcher. Their decision, don’t blame anyone else. If the Democrats wanted to turn Saddam loose they had 8 years to do it. The truth is they did whatever was politically useful at the time.

8. El Cid Says:
   August 18th, 2007 at 6:37 pm

   alphie, has a new nickname, I see.

9. saltydog Says:
   August 20th, 2007 at 5:52 pm

   Cid,

   Since the script is same for this bunch, it’s hard to tell if it’s a new name or a new writer.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.