Yes, I know many here think that there will be no withdrawal, and in fact Iran will be attacked next (though the June date that I read about on the internet has passed). But I don't think so, and I think the wretched news of the 14 Marine deaths from yesterday will not change the decision that has been made to withdraw substantial US forces next year.
It's Newsweek with the Bushco talking points:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8770418/site/newsweek/
- "Donald Rumsfield" is the first phrase mentioned in the article. We are told that the withdrawal is his plan, that it is in fact part of his grand design originally (and thereby he is in control and can still claim everything is "on track.")
- The Pentagon has developed very detailed plans and the Iraqi operation commander Casey has "hinted" at it. Sounded like a downright declaration of withdrawal to me.
- Their conditions have been reduced to keeping the "political process" moving in Iraq. This has been further reduced to having a constitution written on August 15 and holding more elections on December 15. Well, last week we saw the Iraqis ask for an extension for constitution writing, and within one day that request was withdrawn. They are going to write that constitution - it doesn't have to be long - and it IS going to be presented as a document which will allow "moving forward." Elections will take place on December 15. It will be curious indeed to see whether the guerillas will not interfere, seeing a great reduction in US forces in the future, or whether they will want to give a final blast to the US. Either way, I think the withdrawal will take place: "Now the conditions for U.S. withdrawal no longer include a defeated insurgency, Pentagon sources say. The new administration mantra is that the insurgency can be beaten only politically, by the success of Iraq's new government." In short, the arguments we've made here at Dkos are true, and the Bushco has been forced to accept that the US is doing more harm by staying.
The withdrawal is presented as "sending a spine-stiffening message" - but to the Iraqi government. It isn't acknowledged by Bushco that the spine-stiffening message may actually be the one sent to the guerillas: you have prevailed, and the US is going to withdraw.
The final paragraph acknowledges the reality: the US does not have the power to stay neither economically, militarily, nor politically.
So, yes, I think we are seeing the outlines of the next year in Iraq. Yes, some troops will remain on bases, but they will be unable to do much except equip Iraqi paramilitaries (I see that is already happening), and guard a few installations. There is going to be no war with Iran. We have not the power.
I am so concerned that there be a Democratic response now. We can see what Bushco is going to claim: Saddam Hussein is overthrown, a "political process" has been started, now the Iraqis' destiny must be in their own hands.
Bush claimed much more in the earlier part of the invasion. He must be saddled with those goals and confronted with the huge costs and the nonexistent benefits of his Iraq adventure. Democratic leaders had better be thinking now.
I know most of you disagree that this withdrawal is going to take place, but I'm convinced it will. Bush has lost in Iraq, and he is now engaged fulltime in framing that loss.