Premature Withdrawal Unsatisfactory

Heaven help me, I agree with PNAC - premature withdrawal leaves everyone unsatisfied.

Yet according to the New York Times:

In a classified briefing to senior Pentagon officials last month, the top American commander in the Middle East outlined a plan that would gradually reduce American forces in Iraq by perhaps 20,000 to 30,000 troops by next spring if conditions on the ground permitted, three senior military officers and Defense Department officials said this week.

General Abizaid also noted that troop levels in Iraq could stay the same as they are currently if the security situation did not warrant a drawdown.

The thing is, it is beginning to look increasingly like the "security situation" the administration are talking about is the security of Republicans in the 2006 election cycle.

Senior administration and Pentagon officials, as well as political leaders in both parties, say there is mounting anxiety over the $5 billion-a-month cost of the war, an overtaxed military, dismal recruiting in the Army and National Guard, dwindling public support for the operation, and a steadily growing number of casualties, punctuated this week by the death of 20 marines in two separate attacks in western Iraq.

"When you wake up in the morning and lose 14 marines, people say, 'What's going on?' " said Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House and a Republican, referring to the attack on Wednesday, when an armored troop carrier hit three stacked mines. "This is a very complicated equation." Mr. Gingrich, a member of a Pentagon advisory panel, said military casualties in Iraq could play a prominent role in next fall's Congressional elections.

And here is where I agree with the original neo-conners at PNAC. While the rightwing pundits have been increasingly parroting a line of "We do them no favors by keeping them dependent on us" - seemingly blithely forgetful that they were busy calling "traitors" at those liberals (I'm not one) who a scant few months ago called for troop withdrawal - over at PNAC Bill Kristol & Gary Schmitt wrote on 12th July:

there is no question that American forces are stretched thin. Having rejected any idea of significantly expanding the size of American ground forces, the Rumsfeld-led Pentagon is on the verge of breaking the backs of the National Guard and the active duty Army. Moreover, there is no question that the U.S. is ill prepared for another serious crisis that might require the use of American military forces.


But the cost of reducing troop levels in Iraq or Afghanistan will be high. Neither Iraq’s nor Afghanistan’s militaries will be ready to take on the burden of fighting their respective insurgencies in the time frame Secretary Rumsfeld is pushing for. Creating new and effective institutions like an Iraqi or Afghan army takes time, as does fighting an insurgency. Neither task here is at all impossible but, if rushed, we do risk ultimate failure for lack of patience.

Secretary Rumsfeld has time and again said that he defers to his generals in Iraq about the number of troops needed. No one vaguely familiar with how decisions are made in this Pentagon believes that to be the case. And, indeed, as visiting members of Congress and military reporters have repeatedly reported from Iraq, the military officers there know quite well that more troops are needed, not less.

Now when liberals like me say stuff like that, we are accused of being defeatist and of aiding the enemy. Yet when Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and Fox News talking-head says it - nary a murmur. Where Kristol and I diverge is that he sees the situation as purely due to Rumsfeld's incompetence - I see Rummie's boss as being equally behind this idiocy on behalf of party, not nation.

Come next spring, it's looking increasingly like the Bush administration will announce the Iraqis are ready whether they are or not and then begin withdrawing troops. They will then defend this move by a combination of "well, liberals wanted the troops out", pure spin of any signs that Iraqi security forces were not ready and that heady phrase "We do do them no favors by keeping them dependent on us."

Yet there is one question, and a highly important one, that I haven't seen asked yet.

Mr. Bush, if your administration withdraws troops next year, what will happen to the reconstruction effort? Will American contractors accept your assurances of the competence of Iraqi troops or will they pack up and come home?

To leave Iraq to slide into civil war would be bad enough. To also fail to fix the infrastructure we promised to fix would be to consign that nation to a generation of barbarism.