I feel very strongly that yesterday's statements on PARTIAL withdrawal by Rumsfield and George Casey do in fact constitute something stronger than a trial balloon. I think it's a major step on extricating themselves from a losing situation in Iraq while suffering as few consequences and as little blame as possible. I am puzzled as to why the story fell onto back pages so quickly -
Washington Post .
More after the jump.
But I believe the quiet reception of the statement well suits Bushco's extrication wishes. That way, when troops start coming home next year, Bush will be able to present it as a well-planned and logical step in the enterprise formerly known as "The Global War on Terror."
I don't think it's merely a question of the 2006 Congressional elections, although they figure into the reasoning. Rather, I think the whole endeavor in Iraq has broken down and Afghanistan is following. I think the US forces have reached the end of their ability to sustain the adventure. The US economy will eventually beseverely impacted. And various global rivals, Iran, Russia, China, have proven the beneficiaries.
Juan Cole thinks this announcement is nothing new:
Since Casey's two conditions can't be met, his statement only gives the appearance of optimism on this score, with none of the substance.
He implies that these statements are ordinary morale-boosting pronouncements that are made periodically. He believes that the US will not be able to withdraw if the situation remains the same.
I DO think instead that these statements mark the turning point in the Bushco invasion and occupation of Iraq. I think Rumsfield made this sudden trip to Iraq to get everybody on board. And I think there's no turning back from the withdrawal under virtually any circumstances I can think of. I think it will happen if the August constitution deadline isn't met, if Britain withdraws its troops, if control of areas of Iraq are lost to militias. Indeed, militia takeovers are happening already, and constitute the best opportunity for the US to gradually reduce its profile.
Sidney Blumenthal notes in Salon that another step towards withdrawal is already happening:
In the face of relentless suicide bomber attacks, U.S. forces have withdrawn as much as possible in the past few weeks to the safety of their bases, drastically reducing their "operational tempo" and cutting casualties to about half those in June.
Fewer US casualties means less media attention and a greater possibility of foisting an interpretation, as George Casey put it in the Washington Post article referenced above,
Insurgencies need progress to survive, and this insurgency is not progressing...
and therefore, overall, the US can claim "Progress!" and withdraw from Iraq.
I think the US's own situation is dictating the withdrawal from Iraq. I hope the Democratic leadership is ready to counter the Bush assertion of progress, because I feel a certain inevitability about Iraq developments in the next year. "Progress" is the new Republican talking point for the next few weeks, to be replaced by fewer and fewer comments on Iraq at all - after all, US casualties are down - and distraction via domestic politics. I feel the decision has been made to abandon the venture, with Bushco hoping to keep a few bases, but with even that scenario negotiable. The agony is, how for Bushco to get out and not be blamed?
The Democrats have plenty of ammuntion in the form of Bushco pronouncements from various points in time of what they hoped to accomplish in Iraq. What were the goals? What has been accomplished? And what are the costs?
I felt last year that the withdrawal would begin in late 2005. I was off by a few months.