Smart Drawdowns
- 03.01.2008 - 11:47 AMSometimes I despair of this administration. After three and a half years of fumbling, the president in late 2006 finally made a courageous if overdue decision to send more troops to Iraq. The payoff has been impressive: The war effort was rescued from the brink of defeat. Now the withdrawal of the surge brigades is underway, and no one knows what will happen when the number of U.S. troops goes back to roughly the pre-surge level of 140,000 by mid-July. At the same time thousands of detainees are being released from American custody, and tensions continue between the Iraqi government and neighborhood volunteers—the Concerned Local Citizens.
The only responsible stance in such a situation is to go slow on troop drawdowns. General Petraeus has recommended a pause and evaluation before resuming the withdrawals. But certain sectors of the administration and the military seem determined to accelerate the pace of withdrawals no matter what. On Friday a “senior White House official”—presumably National Security Adviser Steve Hadley or possibly his deputy, Doug Lute—told reports that, as the Wall Street Journal story has it, “the temporary halt in troop reductions set to begin in July would likely last only four to six weeks, and further withdrawals would almost certainly occur in 2008.” This same article quotes aides to Defense Secretary Bob Gates as saying “troop withdrawals could resume this fall and continue at the pace of one brigade — about 3,500-4,500 troops — a month, pushing overall troop levels down to roughly 115,000 by the end of the year, the lowest level since the invasion.”
Why does anyone in the administration think it’s helpful to raise expectations that U.S. troop levels could fall so dramatically by the end of the year? It can’t be for domestic political reasons, surely. The president isn’t standing for reelection, and the Republican nominee, John McCain, has been the most stalwart defender of the surge. In any case, in the past we’ve seen that what has hurt public support for the war effort and the Republican Party is not the total troop levels but the perception that our troops weren’t winning. Now our troops are winning, but a too-sudden withdrawal could jeopardize that progress.
I fully understand and sympathize with the imperative to drawdown. General George Casey, the army chief of staff, is right to warn of the strain on the force. The sacrifices of our fighting men and women have been beyond praise, and everyone wishes we could bring as many of them home as soon as possible. But few soldiers I have spoken to want to come home prematurely if it means leaving the mission undone. And make no mistake: that is the risk we run.
It’s quite possible that it may be prudent to resume a drawdown in the fall. But why speculate about that now? It can only encourage our enemies to wait us out and doubt our resolve. At least that has been the effect in the past of such leaks about troop drawdowns which seemed to emanate every other month from the Rumsfeld Department of Defense.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
March 1st, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Amen, Max. And what will the decrease in troops do to the change in strategy, always the more important element in the surge — will we continue to go on the offensive, defeat terrorists and insurgents, and hold towns and villages if we draw down as advertised?
March 1st, 2008 at 2:34 PM
This directly undercuts McCain, whose principle argument is that the Democrats are foolish to set timetables, because it tells the Al Qaeda what the US is planning to do.
I’m a Canadian. In this country we decide how long we are staying in Afghanistan by reaching a consensus. That makes sense. We have a minority government that needs the support of the Liberals to carry out its policy.
In the U.S., you have elections to decide these things. I thought this was supposed to be an election about big things. For all our sakes, I hope it still is.
March 1st, 2008 at 2:42 PM
“President Bush declined Saturday to repeat promises made by others in his administration that more U.S. troops will return home from Iraq than scheduled before he leaves office. ”
. . .
“My sole criteria is that whatever we do, it ought to be in the context of success.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
March 1st, 2008 at 3:25 PM
wow, a neoconservative advocating for the spilling of more US blood and treasure. this must be a first!
March 1st, 2008 at 5:46 PM
NYer is right. Petraeus didn’t announce any new plan for troop withdrawals and President Bush didn’t either.
The Wall Street Journal presented rumor and speculation as news.
March 1st, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Al Qaeda is sitting there watching so it makes no difference what we announce. They will see when we start to leave. Iran isnt going anywhere either. No one is talking much about Afghanistan either which has gotten worse.
March 1st, 2008 at 7:06 PM
“Sometimes I despair of this administration. After three and a half years of fumbling, the president in late 2006 finally made a courageous if overdue decision to send more troops to Iraq.”
That kind of comment really pisses me off. Max Boot doesn’t know what the consequences would have been with substantially more troops early in the war as some argued nor do I. The fact is we won the war before the insurgency developed with the small footbrint that we made. After Bush 1 and Clinton the availability of combat troops was greatly limited. We have no idea what the insurgency would have been without the looting etc or Abu Graib. In my view it wouldn’t have made any difference because Al Qaeda realized this is a war they couldn’t afford to lose and it would have reacted in any case. . We do know that our enemy in 2005 and 2006 was encouraged by opposition to the war in the US Congress and believed they could drive us out. Thank God Bush thought differently. . We really do not know at which point the surge should have been made. The main fact, in my view, is that Muslims in Iraq had to get tired of being blown uo by other Muslims. It took Catholics and Protestants nearly a hundred years in the 16th-17th centuries to come to this conclusion. We are too impatient. The surge came at the right time. We are winning.
March 1st, 2008 at 7:52 PM
the problem is that americans are not long-term thinkers. that’s what killed vietnam and what’ll kill iraq and afghanistan. that’s why the natives say “we’ll be here forever but at some point you’ll have to leave”.
americans are all for quick, inexpensive success. long expensive success is another matter.
ww2 was the right kind of war. insurgencies…
March 1st, 2008 at 8:03 PM
oao,
Richard Jansen is an American, and so am I. Speak for yourself.
By the way, the vast majority of historical insurgencies failed miserably. The majority of “natives” in Iraq want the Coalition to stay until the mission is accomplished, and so do the majority of Americans.
March 2nd, 2008 at 4:00 AM
ziggy,
the comment was not about individuals, but the culture/society as a whole. It is obvious there are exceptions, but they are not the rule. I stand behind the statement.
Current insurgencies are not exactly historical ones. If you want to educate yourself on the difference I recommend this site: http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/. And if i am not mistaken most of those that failed were not fighting Americans