OK, yes, Rumsfield has announced that he will send 1,500 MORE troops to Iraq (although I seem to remember reading that it would be 10,000 - 20,000 more, perhaps due to holding over troops scheduled for rotation). Yet, I remain convinced that a withdrawal will begin next year.
But there's something that's not making sense.
I pay little attention to what Bush says. He is fully capable of saying that the US will "stay the course" in Iraq even as a detailed troop withdrawal schedule is set up. He pretty much speaks (and probably thinks) in meaningless slogans. His actions don't necessarily correspond to what he says.
He had said the August 15 constitution-signing deadline was incredibly important. The deadline has come and gone, and little on the ground has changed. The 1,500 extra troops are not to meet some catastrophe caused by the lack of a signed constitution, but for future elections, which are apparently on track (Bushco must be SO hoping that they are). Any piece of paper that they can get a few signatures on will do. Split Iraq into 3? Fine. Islamic Republic with a Mullah at the head? Whatever. The great, the important thing to Bushco is to be able to claim "progress is being made."
Which he's claiming in spite of the lack of a constitution, something we were told was of absolute importance a couple of weeks ago. Even if elections are held in just part of the country, it will be "progress."
Today's Financial Times brings another article quoting the Director of Operations at Central Command who is apparently speaking with the approbation of Abazayid:
We believe at some point, in order to break this dependence on the . . . coalition, you simply have to back off and let the Iraqis step forward.
He goes on to say they don't really have the troops.
What doesn't compute for me is why there is such a growing divergence between what the White House is saying and what the generals are saying. Why isn't one or the other piping down, e.g. Bush saying that progress is being made and then nothing else while withdrawal plans are quietly advancing, OR the generals letting Bush talk war while withdrawal plans are quietly advancing. The obvious conclusion is that they are fighting, that the White House really wants to stay in Iraq while the Pentagon doesn't. Or Bushco is fearful of losing control of the message to opponents, having it appear that they are being forced to withdraw, and losing the House or the Senate. Or has Bushco totally lost control of the situation and are being tossed in different directions one day or another?
It certainly does appear that Bush is digging himself ever deeper into a hole. However, the expectations for Iraq have been lowered before, and they are being lowered again: any piece of paper (as we have seen, handwritten notes are being hailed as "Progress" just now), and some sort of elections in December. I wouldn't be surprised if the October referendum is dropped.
There are just too many stories about the increasingly detailed withdrawal plans circulating for me to doubt that some sort of withdrawal will begin. As long as I hear the phrase "progress is being made," I'm confident that a withdrawal will begin.