Is there violence in Iraq? Sure there is! Were 200 people killed in Washington DC without their names being splashed all over the news last year, and every year? I don't know. There might be violence in Iraq in January, it might be worse, it might be the same, it might be better.
Kennedy: Do you need more troops.
Rumsfeld: I don't know. I can't predict the situation in January, I don't have a plan.
!!!?????!!!!
How is the number of murders in DC last year even remotely comparable to the situation in Iraq, where 200 people are dying a week in terrorist bombings? What kind of lame ass red herring is that, anyway? The guy is insane, and desperate, and Sen. Warner shamelessly and abruptly tried to bail him out with some hagiography for PM Allawi, in effect smacking Teddy to the curb for daring to ask pointed questions.
Alas, I missed McCain's questioning. Hopefully they'll replay it today.
Senator Reed asked Rummy about a Pentagon panel study that says clearly the US needs more troops; Rumsfeld praised the report as "an excellent piece of work" but said the portion Sen. Reed read wasn't representative of the whole piece. Then he declined to give any information about conclusions of the study that might have suggested there were sufficient troops for Iraq and other potential missions. (See today's Times A12 for more vague and conflicting obscurities on this exchange).
What this means? There will be a DRAFT immediately after Bush is re-elected (and possibly if Kerry wins). It's decided. If we're staying in Iraq, there will be a draft. My students will be slogging through dust with 50 lbs on their backs, dreaming of being able to not read Faulkner and sit in my tedious class. I'm going to go cry now.
7 comments:
Actually, there is as much of a possibility that the US will pull out relatively soon (1.5 or 2 years) after the election, no matter who is elected. After all, Bush really only cares about vindication by being re "elected". If he then has to declare victory and go home, from his POV that's OK as long as he does it with enough time before the next election, so that it is less of an issue for whichever Repulsican they decide to run (with appropriate excuses for the unfortunate appearance of defeat). Kerry can pull out within the same time frame, rightly blaming Bush and the Repulsicans for the whole mess (though he would have to TRY to make things work out in Iraq, so he can say he tried). But a draft won't fly whoever wins. Whichever side tries a draft could lose on that effort alone in 2008 - everyone involved would rather let Iraq go down the drain...
I could see the cut-and-run crowd winning after a couple more years, particularly if things continue to go down the tubes; they'd have to overcome neo-con opposition. Senator Reed's comments seemed, however, to suggest that the emergency in troop strength was IMMINENT, as in January of next year some drastic measures would need to be taken. If we end up tangling with Sudan's militias, or NorKor, or Iran, or if we get hit again on our soil, we're going to have trouble staffing a response.
Of course, "drastic measures" could mean giving a huge signing bonus to new volunteers, or dangling a new Hummer or some other enticement to Guardspeople in order to get the to agree to another six months on the ground. Drastic measures could mean significant withdrawal of troops as well, or a shift of all forces based in Europe and SoKor to Iraq. But I don't think we'll be pulling out that soon, and I don't think the Republicans will care, if they maintain control of the White House and Congress, about political ramifications after a draft. Their hardcore constituents wouldn't either. Many Democrats are calling for a draft now in order to require a more univeral sacrifice (most notably Charlie Rangle of NY). If the Pentagon advises a new Kerry Administration that they need troops NOW, and they want to start the process of activating Selective Service, what choice will he have? Prove to be a wuss who cuts and runs and leaves Iraq a "breeding ground for terrorism" and prove Cheney's attacks correct, or call up some not-quite-volunteer forces and stay for the four years he's announced?
Who knows. I'm reading into Rummy's comments and speculating...
If we are living through an inexact mirror image of "Vietnam", the exit strategy would probably be an Iraqi version of Vietnamization. That is, train and supply Iraqi forces like mad and let them take over their own security operations. Then get out. Let Iraqi forces get blown up rather than our own people. Then blame them for losing, if that happens.
I hope we aren't in that mirror world, or at least are in some more benign variation of it. Because otherwise, before preceding to the exit Vietnamization stage we will have to go through ESCALATION.......
One of the most uncanny things about this election is how the Vietnam experience is being reflected into the debate, without the awareness of the similarities being discussed - are we doomed to go through it all AGAIN?
Apparently so, if the reports of plans for a major offensive after the election are true. We'll be destroying Iraq to save it from itself, "pacifying" towns, etc. We won't be defoliating.
250 attacks a day, up from 70 last spring, and "we're making progress." I saw last month that Daniel Ellsberg was calling for new Ellsbergs to step forward--with some results (the not-so rosey scenarios of the CIA assessment was released on the sly, and the Post today had reporting on more dire security analyses not released officially but obtained from somebody on the "Eyes Only" list). All a big cycle.
Check out Harper's this month for the analysis of the 9-11 Commission Report==very Warren-reportesque.
According to that "excellent piece of work," the draft would apply to men 18-35. Which would include me, except that the military does not take queens.
If the draft comes, just tell your students to say they are gay. Spread the word so that millions of guys are just delcaring themselves as homos, which would be far more effective than an anti-war rally. Imagine the message that would send to Washington.
Yeah, let's see how many "Dittohead", Ann Coulter-quoting, four-more-year chantin, war-mongering trolls turn off their AM radio and go apply to the military. Uh, that would be about 23.
I don't know, I would sure like that Hummer!!!
Colin Powell on This Week this morning:
"There are no plans for a draft. There are no plans to ask for more troops in Iraq--at least the White House has no plans for more troops. The President has made clear that we'll only send more troops to Iraq if the Pentagon or the commanders on the ground specifically ask for them."
These are little snippets from answers to a variety of questions from Stephanaupoulis.
Re-arrange them a bit, noting the "the White House has no plans for more troops." Rummy's "excellent piece of work" already asked for more troops, and General Abizaid said this week that to secure the elections in January they'll need 15-25,000 more troops in Iraq. So Powell in effect admitted that while the White House has no plans, the commanders and the Pentagon do, thus leaving George's questions ("Will we be sending more troops to Iraq, and if we do so after the election without saying so to the American people will it be dishonest?") unanswered.
Post a Comment