It has been said often that when the Iraqi's step up, we can step down and the latest report from the LA Times shows us that it is quite possible that part of the report that General Petreaus will be issuing mid September will be showing that the areas where he and our military are seeing the greatest progress and success will be handed over to trained Iraqi security forces as our military moves into other areas to duplicate the process.Intent on demonstrating progress in Iraq, the top U.S. general there is expected by Bush administration officials to recommend removing American troops soon from several areas where commanders believe security has improved, possibly including Al Anbar province.
According to the officials, Gen. David H. Petraeus is expected to propose the partial pullback in his September status report to Congress, when both the war's critics and supporters plan to reassess its course. Administration officials who support the current troop levels hope Petraeus' recommendations will persuade Congress to reject pressure for a major U.S. withdrawal.
The expected recommendation would authorize U.S. commanders to withdraw troops from places that have become less violent and turn over security responsibilities to Iraqi forces.
But it does not necessarily follow that Petraeus would call for reducing the overall number of troops in the country. Instead, he could move them to another hot spot, or use them to create a reserve force to counter any rise in violence.
This has been the goal and the intentions and we have been waiting for the conditions on the ground to warrant such a move, but let us hope that it is done because the Iraqi security forces are ready and able to handle it and not because of Democratic political pressure in Congress from those that are so invested in defeat they cannot accept that we are seeing progress.
Petreaus does seem to be keeping that in mind as shown in a paragraph a little further down:Petraeus has been keeping a "close hold" on the recommendations he intends to deliver next month, according to a senior military officer in Baghdad. But the officer said Petraeus wanted to ensure that any moves he made did not cause violence to flare up again.
"He doesn't want to lose the gains we have made," said the military officer who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity because the report is still being developed.
We know the British troops left Basra believing the Iraqi's were able to maintain the security, which has been their goal also, but it proved to be too soon.
TODAYS NYT article tries to spin it by implying that the troop reductions will be a reversal on Bush's part instead of a natural reduction in the surge which was said at the time it was announced, it was temporary, to have the manpower to secure then hand over security to the Iraqi security forces.
The surge has attained more rapid progress in the last 6 months than anyone expected for that time frame.
Bryan Baird, a Democrat that has been against our actions in Iraq, on record, since before we went there, yesterday came back and made a clear pronouncement that although he maintains his previous argument about going into Iraq, he sees the amazing progress being made, he did this showing great courage and knowing that he was going to catch hell for it, but he thinks the US needs to 'stay longer", Keith Ellison and Jerry McNerney both Democrats against our actions in Iraq came away a couple weeks ago with the same recommendation, even the "Dick" Durbin and Casey, both Democrats reluctantly admitted the surge has produced progress and again yesterday we showed you al-Maliki courting the Sunni's in a complete turnaround to produce political reconciliation.
The NYT might want to "spin" our recent successes but they are out there, documented as are the words of the Democrats that have been to Iraq and seen the differences.
Jules Crittenden finds humor in the NYT piece, you really have to read his post today.
Ha ha, NYT humor! What message is Bush going to aim at the growing numbers of Congressional Democrats who now say he’s doing something right in Iraq? Well, I think we’ve just seen it. It’s a figleaf to cover the nakedness of their admissions that winning may trump surrender. Memo to NYT, etal. You may want to go count heads on that growing number of Congressional Republicans who have criticized President Bush’s handling of the war. I suspect the sponginess factor of spineless resolve may be up.
Read it all.
We know from House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) that progress in Iraq is bad news for the Democrats, which could be part of the reason these last few have come back hailing success, they do not want to be painted anymore as part of a group that ignores progress and success and continues to make the demand to withdrawal, especially with the MSM being forced to finally report all the gains Petraeus and our military and coalition and Iraqi security forces are attaining in Iraq.
Here was Clyburn's statement for those that missed it:
We said this, multiple times, even earlier today, Democrats are too invested in failure to be able to survive success in Iraq, and now Wapo basically reports the same thing.(Additional Note Added: It would behoove us to remember this is the report that is creating all the false indignation about it being issued from the White House, by people that obviously never read the emergency supplemental bill in full and didn't realize that Congress mandated the White House to issue the report.)House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.
Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.
Ya think????? Is Wapo just discovering this?
Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.
"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."
We said the rats were jumping off the sinking ship, we showed those that have stranded themselves on that ship weren't too happy with those flying overboard and the NYT might be the only rat left on this sinking ship of "declare defeat before we can win", along with Pelosi, Reid and the Democratic candidates which are so heavily invested in defeat they cannot change their position now, no matter how much progress is made.
After all, to them, their next election means far more than America's success.
Others discussing the misleading NYT article are: (via memeorandum)
Jules Crittenden, Captain's Quarters, The Influence Peddler, The Van Der Galiën Gazette, JustOneMinute.