August 25, 2005
THEIR TURN:
US general sees significant withdrawal in Iraq (Peter Spiegel in London and Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington, August 24 2005, Financial Times)
The US is expected to pull significant numbers of troops out of Iraq in the next 12 months in spite of the continuing violence, according to the general responsible for near-term planning in the country.Maj Gen Douglas Lute, director of operations at US Central Command, yesterday said the reductions were part of a push by Gen John Abizaid, commander of all US troops in the region, to put the burden of defending Iraq on Iraqi forces. [...]
He said: “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.
“You have to undercut the perception of occupation in Iraq. It's very difficult to do that when you have 150,000-plus, largely western, foreign troops occupying the country.”
The French didn't wait around to see how we did running our own country. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 25, 2005 12:00 AM
It is rather curious, or ought to be, how almost everyone except the president is talking about withdrawal, phased withdrawal, partial withdrawal, strategic withdrawal, running away, etc.
Reminds me of those who triumphantly trumpeted a Bolton-less UN.
Or, for that matter, of those who triumphantly predicted a Kerry victory, a quagmire in Iraq, a failed Iraqi election, or an impossible Iraqi constitution.
Etc.
It goes without saying, however, that for many of these, Kerry really did win, the Iraqi elections are meaningless, the Iraqi constitution (and the process of writing it) is a bad joke purveyed by American puppets, Iraq is a quagmire, and the US is on the verge (sooner or later) of quitting the Iraqi theater.
(Certainly, if one says "Iraq is a quagmire" often enough, it must therefore be one.)
And of course, because of all the above, Bush is the most divisive president in American history.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at August 25, 2005 05:31 AMWhy is this so hard to understand?
This is not an all-or-nothing situation. Iraqis need to be the ones mixing it up on the street, we need to be the ones backing them up with technology and logistics. The desirable balance has them taking most of the casulties, which is as it should be, while being utterly dependent on us for what they need to keep operating.
This is about civilizational transformation: Berlin and Tokyo were not remade in a day.
Posted by: Lou Gots at August 25, 2005 07:05 AMBerlin and Tokyo were defeated populations.
Posted by: oj at August 25, 2005 09:03 AMNo, they just started attacking US w/in the year.
Posted by: Sandy P at August 25, 2005 11:34 AM"The French didn't wait around to see how we did running our own country," and don't think we're not grateful.
Posted by: erp at August 25, 2005 11:41 AMLou -
Because Leftists are utopians they can't comprehend that difficulty and progress can coexist. In their minds if we can't turn Iraq into shangri-la then its better that we let it devolve into abaddon.
At some point, the Iraqi security forces will obviously have to take up the missions now being performed by American troops. The only real question is, when are the Iraqis going to be ready? General Abizaid seems to think that they're getting there, and as a result he's aiming for a gradual draw-down of US forces. Here's hoping that he's right.
Posted by: Pat Phillips at August 25, 2005 12:55 PM