Everything's going according to plan
Sep. 17th, 2007 01:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
forsythThe media the past couple days was filled with headlines touting President Bush's proclaimed "drawdown" in Iraq.
The troops he's declared he's bringing home? They're the "surge", which were planned to come home in Spring of 2008 ANYWAY.
Nothing has changed. The troops are being withdrawn because a) that was the plan all along, and b) To keep them there much longer would mean the army would break. 15 month tours of duty, multiple times, with "stop-loss" keeping people from quitting the army, all of that has gone into keeping troops in Iraq. Some time in 2009 (safely after Bush is out of office, of course) we'll HAVE to start bringing soldiers home.
This whole thing has been an elaborate kabuki theater, designed to stall for time and pretend our troops are doing any good over there. All so we wouldn't leave on Bush's watch, and so that way the withdrawal and any results of it can be blamed on the next president (almost certain to be a Democrat, considering the Republican field is batshit insane). Except for any good results, or even neutral results, which will be credited to our far-sighted decider for invading Iraq in the first place.
It's all smoke and mirrors. And our lazy corporate media keeps falling for it. Bush isn't changing anything based on success, the troops are staying until next year, because that's how long the generals said they could keep it without totally shattering the army. And so that's how it was planned. Nothing has changed.
hilzoy, of course, says it better.
The troops he's declared he's bringing home? They're the "surge", which were planned to come home in Spring of 2008 ANYWAY.
Nothing has changed. The troops are being withdrawn because a) that was the plan all along, and b) To keep them there much longer would mean the army would break. 15 month tours of duty, multiple times, with "stop-loss" keeping people from quitting the army, all of that has gone into keeping troops in Iraq. Some time in 2009 (safely after Bush is out of office, of course) we'll HAVE to start bringing soldiers home.
This whole thing has been an elaborate kabuki theater, designed to stall for time and pretend our troops are doing any good over there. All so we wouldn't leave on Bush's watch, and so that way the withdrawal and any results of it can be blamed on the next president (almost certain to be a Democrat, considering the Republican field is batshit insane). Except for any good results, or even neutral results, which will be credited to our far-sighted decider for invading Iraq in the first place.
It's all smoke and mirrors. And our lazy corporate media keeps falling for it. Bush isn't changing anything based on success, the troops are staying until next year, because that's how long the generals said they could keep it without totally shattering the army. And so that's how it was planned. Nothing has changed.
hilzoy, of course, says it better.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-09-18 01:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-18 02:21 am (UTC)No matter how bad you think they are, the Bush administration is worse.