This was on Buzzflash, apologies if it was already covered.
The linked article tells how a large number of neocons are suddenly (and almost simultaneously) changing the minds about troop levels in Iraq. According to wise sages like Ken "cakewalk" Adelman, it's time to get the boys out of there. Apparently, they are doing more harm than good. Who knew?
Hawks push deep cuts in forces in Iraq
Why this sudden change of heart? Maybe there is a clue in this quote from Retired Army Major General William Nash:
Nash, who supported Hussein's ouster, said a substantial reduction after the Iraqi elections in January "would be a wise and judicious move" to demonstrate that the Americans are leaving. The remaining US forces should concentrate their energies on border operations, he added. "The absence of targets will go a long way in decreasing the violence."
Hmm... soldiers massing on the borders...hmm... where could that lead us? Sure hope there isn't any kind of incident that would necessitate invading Iran or Syria.
Excerpts from
Hawks push deep cuts in forces in Iraq
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | November 22, 2004
WASHINGTON -- A growing number of national security specialists who supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein are moving to a position unthinkable even a few months ago: that the large US military presence is impeding stability as much as contributing to it and that the United States should begin major reductions in troops beginning early next year.
Their assessments, expressed in reports, think tank meetings, and interviews, run counter to the Bush administration's insistence that the troops will remain indefinitely to establish security. But some contend that the growing support for an earlier pullout could alter the administration's thinking.
Those arguing for immediate troop reductions include key Pentagon advisers, prominent neoconservatives, and some of the fiercest supporters of the Iraq invasion among Washington's policy elite.
The core of their arguments is that even as the US-led coalition goes on the offensive against the insurgency, the United States, by its very presence, is stimulating the resistance.
"Our large, direct presence has fueled the Iraqi insurgency as much as it has suppressed it," said Michael Vickers, a conservative-leaning Pentagon consultant and longtime senior CIA official who supported the war.
Retired Army Major General William Nash, the former NATO commander in Bosnia, said: "I resigned from the 'we don't have enough troops in Iraq' club four months ago. We have too many now."
...
Even leading war supporters such as Max Boot, an influential neoconservative thinker derided by critics as one of those who believe the United States must stick it out for an undetermined amount of time, contends that the US presence is beginning to threaten long-term goals.
"This is turning out to be a lot harder than anyone expected -- and harder than it needed to be," Boot said last week.
Weird isn't it? It's like the Stepford Pundits. As if they were taking orders from some central office somewhere.
Read the rest