2008 Woodie Awards
Iraq: U.S. military pullout coming sooner than later?
Dan O'Gara
Issue date: 9/7/07 Section: OpEd Page
There were some subtle and some not so subtle signs this week that a pullout from Iraq may not be as far off as many people think. President George Bush made a surprise visit to Iraq and announced that troop levels might be drawn down, while British forces retreat from their base in Basra Palace. The declaration by Bush comes as the biggest surprise as a report on the effectiveness of increased U.S. troop levels is due later next week. The British move is significant, if not largely symbolic, because the British haven't been in control in Basra for some time. Although Gordon Brown maintains that this latest move is not a pullout, as predicted in my last column, the British are certainly moving closer to extracting themselves from the Iraq debate.
Despite the belief by the majority of Americans that we are not on the winning side of our latest Middle Eastern excursion, the Bush administration has seen fit to defy his country by ordering more troops into Iraq earlier this year. Personally, I am not completely convinced that the "surge" was an entirely terrible idea: If we aren't winning the war, then isn't the proper course of action to supplement our forces, not retreat or pull out? I suppose it could be argued that this is an intractable civil war that no amount of American troops will ever solve. Yet it seems that perhaps some headway is being made by the increased American presence, as the violence seems to have peaked.
Even though the attacks seemed to have dropped off in the city, Baghdad is certainly not a place you could stroll through comfortably without a John McCain-esque security team. Regardless of whether you think the "surge" was a last gasp by a hell-bent president or a legitimate effort to curb rampant terrorism, it appears that it has finally come to an end and troop levels may in fact be drawn down. The problem with Bush's announcement that the Iraqi security forces may be able to shoulder more responsibility is the lingering grey cloud of the presidential elections. Was his trip to Iraq and the subsequent announcement simply a publicity stunt intended to ameliorate the public's image of the Republican Party? My gut tells me that this is probably half true.
Bush saw another opportunity to take some pressure off the party at a time when it needed it most. The Republicans have been rocked by yet another scandal, this time involving Senator Larry Craig who apparently solicited sex from an undercover male police officer in a bathroom. At the same time he is also probably trying to help his own legacy by providing a positive context for the report on the "surge" next week. Also, doesn't it seem curious that a draw down is possible so soon after an injection of 30,000 extra troops? Is it possible that the extra troops were so successful that they are ready to bring some home? This all seems a little questionable to me. So are these latest developments signs of an imminent American pullout? I doubt it. While it is undoubtedly a good thing to get more of our troops back home, I believe that Bush will leave the vast majority of troops in Iraq to continue fighting an uphill battle.
Despite the belief by the majority of Americans that we are not on the winning side of our latest Middle Eastern excursion, the Bush administration has seen fit to defy his country by ordering more troops into Iraq earlier this year. Personally, I am not completely convinced that the "surge" was an entirely terrible idea: If we aren't winning the war, then isn't the proper course of action to supplement our forces, not retreat or pull out? I suppose it could be argued that this is an intractable civil war that no amount of American troops will ever solve. Yet it seems that perhaps some headway is being made by the increased American presence, as the violence seems to have peaked.
Even though the attacks seemed to have dropped off in the city, Baghdad is certainly not a place you could stroll through comfortably without a John McCain-esque security team. Regardless of whether you think the "surge" was a last gasp by a hell-bent president or a legitimate effort to curb rampant terrorism, it appears that it has finally come to an end and troop levels may in fact be drawn down. The problem with Bush's announcement that the Iraqi security forces may be able to shoulder more responsibility is the lingering grey cloud of the presidential elections. Was his trip to Iraq and the subsequent announcement simply a publicity stunt intended to ameliorate the public's image of the Republican Party? My gut tells me that this is probably half true.
Bush saw another opportunity to take some pressure off the party at a time when it needed it most. The Republicans have been rocked by yet another scandal, this time involving Senator Larry Craig who apparently solicited sex from an undercover male police officer in a bathroom. At the same time he is also probably trying to help his own legacy by providing a positive context for the report on the "surge" next week. Also, doesn't it seem curious that a draw down is possible so soon after an injection of 30,000 extra troops? Is it possible that the extra troops were so successful that they are ready to bring some home? This all seems a little questionable to me. So are these latest developments signs of an imminent American pullout? I doubt it. While it is undoubtedly a good thing to get more of our troops back home, I believe that Bush will leave the vast majority of troops in Iraq to continue fighting an uphill battle.
Be the first to comment on this story