I have more questions than answers, but in follow-up to this
interesting discussion over the weekend, wherein one
polite Bush voter (not everyone is a troll) asked if we have to question everything, the
NY Times answers:
The Bush administration justifies these movements by pointing to fundamental changes in the geography of threats since the end of the cold war. In Asia, however, that geography has not changed all that much...
Despite the Pentagon's denials, it seems deliberate that the two largest withdrawals have been proposed for countries that the Bush administration has had serious differences with in recent years, over Iraq in the German case, and over negotiating strategy with North Korea in the case of Seoul. Both countries have been working hard to patch up relations - South Korea is one of the few American allies with troops in Iraq - but the Pentagon does not seem interested in reciprocating
Some communities in Germany are already concerned about the economic impact. While that shouldn't set America's strategic policy, what is clear is that this Administration does nothing - nothing - without political considerations first and foremost. I don't fault them for that... I just want to know the full picture before accepting anything Bush does as useful or useless.
Update [2004-8-17 10:43:29 by DemFromCT]:To those who say it's all just good policy, more from
First read on the politics:
The Washington Post on Bush's redeployment proposal: "Bush's announcement of the plan -- which drew mixed assessments from military analysts -- gave him a chance to talk about bringing troops home at a time when his opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), has pledged to substantially reduce U.S. troop levels in Iraq."
"Kerry, who was vacationing in Idaho, did not immediately respond to Bush, but several of his allies attacked the plan vigorously. The Democratic National Committee organized a conference call with retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, NATO's former supreme allied commander, who said the plan 'will significantly undermine U.S. national security'... Richard C. Holbrooke... criticized Bush for slipping a 'historic announcement' into essentially a campaign speech."
The New York Times: "Mr. Bush's announcement, in a swing state that the White House has identified as essential..., came with heavy political overtones. It is part of an effort leading into the Republican National Convention to promote Mr. Bush's record on national security... Mr. Kerry, a Vietnam combat veteran, is scheduled to address the same convention on Wednesday. Mr. Bush, who spent the Vietnam War in a noncombat role in the Texas Air National Guard, attacked Mr. Kerry several times in his remarks as being weak on defense."
USA Today: "The president's announcement, coming amid Republican criticism of... Kerry's fitness to be commander in chief, also served a political purpose, particularly given that the VFW's 105th annual convention took place in a hotly contested state. Kerry addresses the VFW on Wednesday. Bush has been making regular campaign appearances that emphasize his credentials as commander in chief and leader of the war on terrorism," including his nomination of Goss and his embrace of some September 11 commission proposals.