In what can only be described as a contradictory, logic-impaired and stunningly dumb piece of horse-hockey, writers Stephen Biddle, Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack penned an op-ed for the NY Times today called "Not Quite Ready to Go Home" and I’d like to take a moment to deconstruct this mess.
Short version: These guys basically agree with Barack Obama’s plan for withdrawal, but they go out of their way to try and prove that he’s wrong. Head spinning yet? Stay tuned.
(By the way, it may look like I cut and pasted most of their story in the following, but I actually cherry-picked. Go to the link to see the entire piece in all it's glory.)
They start off with this gem:
"Almost everyone now agrees there has been great progress in Iraq. The question is what to do about it."
Okay, fellas. So your basic premise is "The surge worked." I could quibble, but I won’t. Let’s say, for the time being, that you’re right. What to do?
"Democrats led by Barack Obama want to take a peace dividend and withdraw all combat brigades by May 2010. Republicans like John McCain want to keep troops in Iraq until conditions on the ground signal the time is ripe. And now the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, has endorsed a timetable for withdrawal, though he seems to favor a somewhat slower pace than the Democrats propose."
Hold it. Maliki’s comments mirror Obama’s almost exactly. But this is the first inkling that these guys are doing a hatchet job on Barack. But remember, no matter what they say from here on in, the basic premise is still this one: the Prime Minister of Iraq wants a withdrawal timetable that ends in 2010 and so does Obama. Keep that in mind. And hold on to your hat.
"If the Iraqi government tells us to leave, we should go. But this would be a bad deal for both Iraqis and Americans."
And we’re off! Despite the fact that there (a) has been progress and (b) the Iraqi government is poised to ask the U.S. to politely leave, this would be a "bad deal." And why is that? The writers back this up by telling us that the decrease in violence is due to either the defeat of the insurgents, cease-fires with some of them or both. The cease-fires are described as unstable and easily reversible and they give a number of examples of cease-fire participants who would happily go back to fighting when the time suits them.
But then the self-contradictory train really gets chugging. They say:
"In part this is because [the Iraqi government is] still not trusted by all cease-fire participants. To many Sunnis in particular, a government military commanded by a Shiite regime is not yet trustworthy enough to be tolerated without an American presence to keep it honest."
Gee, that’s kinda bad. Wouldn’t it be nice if that could change? Their next sentence:
"To some extent, this is changing: for example, the National Police have replaced three-fourths of its leaders over the last year or so and now have more than a proportionate share of Sunnis in command positions."
Oh, so that’s good, right? Not exactly:
"But full reconciliation will take time."
Jeez, guys, make up your minds! Is the country stable or not? And how much time? Like, two years maybe? Then:
"The Iraqi security forces are simply not yet able to operate effectively without United States air support, combat advisers and help with logistics and intelligence."
Who said they are? We’re not withdrawing troops now and nobody is suggesting we do. But in time we could begin a large-scale withdrawal if the government remains stable. So stop contradicting yourselves you a-holes!
"When Iraqi units with no American embeds tried to take the port city of Basra last spring, they were turned back in mass confusion, and it required United States combat help to save the day."
Last spring? You mean pre-surge? I’m sorry, but didn’t you start off your piece by saying that there has been "great progress" since then?
The rest of the piece is much the same. They say one thing, then they contradict it. They agree that troop withdrawals will be possible, but just not right now. (This despite the fact that absolutely no one who has a chance of becoming president is suggesting that we leave "right now.")
Some examples of this convoluted crap include these quotes:
"American combat troops are also critical for political progress in Iraq."
Translation: We should stay.
"There has been real political change in Iraq...Over the past year the Iraqis have passed critical amnesty, de-Baathification and provincial-powers laws, as well as a federal budget — all of which had been previously seen as hopelessly deadlocked."
Translation: We’re good to go.
"[For next year’s elections in Iraq],. American combat troops are needed to protect polling places from terrorism, and even more important, from voter intimidation, fraud and the perception that the results were rigged."
We should stick around.
"Over time, the need for United States contributions will diminish."
But we can go eventually.
"[Other challenges are:] the resettlement of four million people now displaced by violence, the equitable sharing of Iraq’s future oil revenues, and a resolution of disputed internal borders in places like the oil-rich city of Kirkuk."
Stay and finish the job.
"If current trends continue, major reductions in American troop levels will be possible."
But not for long.
"[B]ut to begin large-scale drawdowns, much less to complete them, before mid-2010 is to run serious risks."
Just not in two years. That’s risky.
It goes on and on like this. Progress has been made, but not enough. We can go, but not too soon. Stability is key, but it can quickly grow unstable. Blah, blah, de-blah. Have you learned anything new based on this little offering of circular logic? If you have, let me know.
They end with:
"It would be tragic, however, to allow American haste and Iraqi political opportunism to undermine a real chance for long-term stability in Iraq. Perhaps an early withdrawal would succeed, and today’s system of cease-fires would survive a rapid United States drawdown. But much important work remains to be done in Iraq. And to believe that it can be done without the longer presence of a significant number of American combat troops requires a degree of optimism that could well end up making "Mission Accomplished" look as premature today as it was in 2003."
Catch that? Withdrawing troops in two years is "early," but it perhaps "would succeed." But there is"much important work" to be done. And then we can bring home the troops.
But not too soon! Which is what Obama wants! Danger! Danger!
Unadulterated bullshit. Yet there it is, in all it’s glory, courtesy of the New York Freakin’ Times.