The Makings Of An October Surprise?
By Daniel DiRito | Related entries in Foreign Policy, General Politics, Military, The War On Terrorism, WarToday’s remarks by General Casey, that seem to indicate some troop reduction in Iraq by years end, coupled with yesterdays Associated Press article outlining a significant reduction in military equipment in the troubled country may be the makings of an October surprise. What I find particularly curious is that while we are seeing signs of a pending military reduction, we see the Republican Party spinning calls by Democrats to begin the process of transitioning security and military oversight to the Iraqi’s as a “cut and run” strategy.
As I view the facts, it appears to me that the realities on the ground may in fact come close to matching the objective outlined in one of the Democratic proposals…and yet if we listen to the rhetoric on the floor of the Senate, one would be apt to conclude that the difference between the Republican and Democratic strategies is significant and tangible. My cynical and suspicious mind tells me the administration may be splitting hairs in order to garner political advantage.
BALAD, Iraq — The U.S. military has begun sending thousands of battered Humvees and other war-torn equipment home as more Iraqi units join the fight against insurgents and American units scheduled for Iraq duty have their orders canceled.
In the last four months, the Army has tagged 7,000 Humvees and 17,000 other pieces of equipment to be shipped to the United States to be rebuilt. They then will be distributed among active and reserve units at home, or possibly returned to equip Iraqi security forces.
“This is all a byproduct of Iraqi forces accepting battle space and U.S. forces being displaced, which has allowed our government to decide not to send more forces,” said Col. Jack O’Connor, commander of the U.S. Army Materiel Command’s sustainment brigade in Iraq.
While I’m certainly not a military strategist, logic tells me that one doesn’t remove equipment from the battlefield unless troops are going to follow. What troubles me is that the Bush administration has long argued that establishing any time line for troop withdrawal would be tipping off insurgents…a move that might allow those who are intent on defeating the efforts to establish a democratic society in Iraq a strategic advantage. While removing equipment isn’t the same as establishing a hard and fast withdrawal date, it certainly provides some clear insight into the U.S. intentions. In addition to giving the insurgents some sense of timing, it also begins to give the Iraqi’s notice that they must begin the process of assuming responsibility for their own security…something many Democrats have been suggesting needed to happen for some time now.
“It is much harder to move equipment than it is to move people,” said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute. “So if the Army is increasing its movement of equipment out of the country, that may signal that it expects fewer soldiers in Iraq six or 12 months from now.”
Read the remainder of the posting at the following link:
This entry was posted on Thursday, June 22nd, 2006 and is filed under Foreign Policy, General Politics, Military, The War On Terrorism, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 23rd, 2006 at 6:42 am
I’ve been saying for months that the Pubs keep blasting Dems for wanting to pull out, while arranging to lower troop levels behind the scenes. Jerks.
June 23rd, 2006 at 11:53 am
JP,
I completely agree with your assessment. My concern is that Democrats seem to be focused on their anger. They tend to spend more energy on their anger at the administration (albeit justified) than on a strategy to defeat the Republicans. My impression is that the Democratic mentality is that the Republicans don’t “play fair”…which is probably true but it doesn’t change the task at hand…we need to have a strategy that can win elections.
I also see a tendency to blame the MSM but that argument is flawed in this way…if I am not swayed by MSM bias, is it reasonable to conclude that we Democrats lose because the MSM is swaying everyone else? If that is true, then I would have to conclude that a majority of my fellow voters are unable to make reasoned judgments. I think that is a dangerous generalization to make because it mirrors the extreme thinking that is all too abundant in politics today. There may be some truth to that observation, but all it really points out is what Democrats have to be achieved in order to unseat the Republicans…we need more votes.
Democrats still have to craft and sell a message that can win a majority of the voters. I suspect the Republicans have simply done a better job of persuading more voters…it is irrelevant whether they think and/or act upon a belief that the voter can be manipulated or not…it is irrelevant whether we Democrats think the voters have made a bad decision…it is irrelevant whether we think the MSM was biased…the bottom line is that the Republicans have done a better job of figuring out how to get the votes. If they are manipulating the MSM or the voter, Democrats simply need to figure out how to do the same thing better. My anger is also irrelevant…it can guide me to a better strategy but anger simply for the sake of anger is pointless. I may not like the game but it is the only one currently being played…and I want to win for a change.
Thanks for your observations and comments.
Daniel
June 25th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Dare I mention Khalildjad’s memo to the boss?
June 27th, 2006 at 6:06 am
If this is an October Surprise, then it’s the most anticipated surprise ever.