Back To A Failing Iraq

by DemFromCT

The U.S. military will likely maintain the current force levels of more than 140,000 troops in Iraq through next spring, the top US. commander in the Middle East said Tuesday in one of the gloomiest assessments yet of how quickly American forces can be brought home.

Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command, said the current number of troops ''are prudent force levels'' that are achieving the needed military effect. Military leaders will increase troop levels and extend the deployments of other units if needed, he said.

We're failing, and the fact and reality of that trumps whatever small gains Bush is trying to make with the WoT. Unlike what journalists enamored of the 24-hour news cycle think, people read Iraq news whether it's on the front page or A17. If there were nothing going on there, it might be able to be covered up. But that's not reality.

Meanwhile, media darling McCain being spanked by conservatives will keep this story in the news a few more days.

Sen. John McCain's bid to position himself as the natural heir to President Bush as a wartime commander in chief and to court conservative leaders in advance of his likely 2008 presidential campaign has threatened to run aground in recent days, as the two men clash over how to detain and try terrorism suspects.

For months, McCain has been wooing Bush's donors, hiring his former advisers and standing by him in the Iraq debate. But the fragile rapprochement between two men who were once bitter rivals for the presidency is facing a sharp new test over McCain's rejection of Bush's pleas to let the administration interpret the Geneva Conventions as it sees fit.

McCain = access = story, so the media adore him.I'll reserve judgement and see what he does (not says) when it comes to torture in the Senate when it counts. Any more arguments about how any national security story is good for Republicans? This can't be good for Bush and McCain at the same time, so reporters and editors will have to choose sides in the Republican civil war.

On the Dem side, Lamont and Lieberman agree with McCain. It's Rs that are divided, not D's... but don't hold your breath waiting to see that in print.

Comments

[Jodi]

DemFromCT,

like I said earlier McCain is trying to establish a different "look" from Bush for future voters and has made alliances with Graham (future southern VP running mate) and Warner. But he is going against General Hayden at the CIA and really rubbing a lot of important people raw.
Now yes who will those folks vote for? Democrats? No. But maybe not vote, and he is losing people that count for more than a single vote? Who will he gain. Democrats? No. Maybe some middle of the roaders.

However all is not well for Bush either. The TWS's editor thinks that Bush set a trap for the Democrats with this "ploy" but traps can be risky both ways.

The end result could well be the CIA not continuing to "interview" [put delicately] prisoners as they have done, which somehow another McCain seems to think ok, as long as it is not formalized. But Hayden and Bush may (and indeed seem to be publically threatening to do so) stop the more rugged interrogations and McCain could well end up looking like he [[didn't stop the terrorists because of a moralistic viewpoint and a weak stomach]]

I think with everything weighted nicely the Democrats will come out ahead on this, so by not very much in the 2006. It could be quite significant come 2008 as the Republicans splinter and McCain loses his luster.

However there may be a Republican hero waiting to step in? -- after the 2006 elections.

[Mimikatz]

So much for bringing troops home before the election.

And we are now active in Iran, which, if it gets any play, will probably increase voter anxiety about the GOP.

[DemFromCT]

I can't disagree too much with your bottom line, Jodi. But Powell, the JAGs and the generals supporting McCain will help with the "understand the issue" voters. What McCain loses is the "loyalty is all" voters.

I don't buy into the argument that torture is what's necessary to stop terrorists or serve justice. Our homegrown Timothy McVeigh wasn't tortured, and justice was served. I think a lot of voters don't want to know what the CIA does but once they do know, they don't automatically approve of it.

Still, there are enough R voters who think that way to hurt McCain. He knows it, and I think still is working from conviction and not a clever distancing strategy. Will it last? Let's see how it plays out this week.

[norbizness]

God, I hate that word "gloomy." It makes it sound like the assessment just has a case of the Mondays. How about "harrowing"?

[Jodi]

The midlevel ground commanders have been screaming for more men to do the job. But realatively quietly to their commanders since they are good soldiers or are afraid of what their next duty will be.

Dad says in Vietnam they didn't care after a while as long as they couldn't be put in the stockade with "bad time," which wouldn't count toward their tour or enlistment.

[DemFromCT]

Jodi, the major difference between the two war of choices is that the unpopular draft guaranteed that Vietnam morale would be worse than Iraq now. But that leaves a sense of bitterness, unfairness and inequity with a burden unshared.

Compulsory service, with a military, public health, peace corps, etc component is an idea whose (discussion) time is coming, as long as miltary is not the only option. The battle for the world's hearts and minds has only begun, and Bush has put us in a hole to start. We need more resources than we currently have to win, and military resource need to properly be seen as a last and not a first resort.