This is why I value bloggers; they provide desperately needed context for the news we're fed. From Scarecrow at Firedoglake:
Just a rough guess, but I suspect there have been at least 100 stories in the MSM since January, and 10-15 or so in the last month explaining that the extra 30,000 troops Bush sent over for the “surge” could not stay there beyond next April because we’d have to rotate them out. Secretary Gates and others promised they would not extend the length of the Army’s 15-month Iraq tours, and there were no additional troops we could rotate in to replace those we have to take out to keep that promise. We’ve had story after story explaining that we’re already breaking the Army and being cruel to their families, and we have to end this.
So no matter what, the US is going to reduce by about 30,000 the number of troops in Iraq starting in the next 6-8 months. No matter what, we’re going to bring them home. We’re going to do it whether the “surge” is a “success” or a “failure,” whether we’ve achieved the latest version of our objective or we haven’t, whether al Maliki gets an oil law passed or sells all the oil to China, or whether he rehires all the ex-Baathists Bremer fired or deports them to Tom Tancredo’s District with fake Social Security cards.
General Casey and the Joint Chiefs have told us repeatedly we can’t sustain the extra 30,000 soldiers in Iraq; they’ve told Bush that in face-to-face meetings. The New York Times and the Washington Post just reported the meetings in which these messages were delivered. In fact, the Times story reported that one of the issues discussed in the meetings was whether it was wiser to start the draw down earlier and more slowly, to give us a strategic cushion we currently don’t have, or to wait until April, when the withdrawal would need to occur more rapidly and inflexibly to meet the inexorable rotation requirements.
Now why aren't we hearing that analysis shouted by every Democrat who can wedge him/herself in front of a microphone? The surge was to be evaluated by political benchmarks. The surge cannot be sustained no matter what. Our army is broken and you have George W. Bush (and the Democrats, but they can leave that part out if they want) to thank for it.
I think I know why.
Comments