The administration is saying, "the war is unpopular, and the midterms are coming up."
See, that's just not a good enough reason to base troop movements on. I agree with the results, but I sure would like to understand the rationale.
Assuming the story is correct as to the Pentagon's actual intentions, as opposed to its public stated ones, it should be compared to these two Spencer Ackerman posts on Maliki's reconciliation plan as proposed and as promulgated.
The administration is saying, "We have to do something. This is pretty close to a non-action as possible while retaining the ability to say we're doing something."
3: Is there a point to such comparison, and if so, could you just tell us what it is?
My assumption is that w/d intends to predict that the troop reductions, like the reconciliation plan, are unlikely to happen as announced.
I would think there is at least something of a causal linkage between the following facts, assuming they are facts (I also broke my links): Maliki was going to strongly request that we provide a timetable for drawdowns, he revised this proposal so as to not make such a request, Ackerman thinks Khalizad may well have been involved in those revisions, we then announce, on our own accord, that some of our troops will be drawn down on a particular time table.
6: That would be my guess. This is a plan, but it's a plan that has a lot of room for fudging. If things go bad (worse?), then the plan gets overruled, but for now, we have a plan. We can tell our constituents, we have a plan. Not our fault if circumstances force us to deviate from the plan.
That said, I can't imagine a plan that wouldn't have a lot of room for fudging, so I'm not sure that's a valid criticism. The details I'm unqualified to criticize (except that it seems we don't have it under control, and that seems to suggest more troops, not fewer.)
The plan is to sqeak by in the midterms, so they get another justice. Then Republicans lose everything in '08. Iraq is in chaos, so the oil is still in the ground. There will still be 50k troops in the desert bases. so as the ME explodes into flames, and gas goes to $10, the Dem President will be expected to do something, but have no resources. Won't get any from a Dem Congress with enough Repubs to veto anything useful. Budget explodes, Dems raise taxes but economy crashes (with the help of Bernanke), hurricanes, floods, make the Carter years look like a paradise. Another 9/11 or worse.
2012:Repubs gain complete dominance. Everything the worst wingnut dreamed of will get enacted.
The current Republican Party is a revolutionary party, as noted by Krugman early in 2003. Destroying everything, knowing the opposition is unable to handle chaos, is the essence of the strategy.
They want to kill Social Security, Medicare, the income tax, choice etc. Telling me "it is impossible" just shows me that Dems can't play on the level of these guys, can't even conceive of high-stakes politics.
Then Republicans lose everything in '08.
So this is why the Democrats nominate Hillary in '08. Then they cannot possibly be holding the presidency & thus, the bag, when everything all goes kaput. It is a cunning plan, I tell you, to avoid the McManus apocalypse.
9 gives the GOP perhaps just a bit too much credit.
C'mon, folks. This is the (tenth? twelfth? hundredth?) plan for a troop drawdown I've read in the past three years. The key graf is this:
American officials emphasized that any withdrawals would depend on continued progress, including the development of competent Iraqi security forces, a reduction in Sunni Arab hostility toward the new Iraqi government and the assumption that the insurgency will not expand beyond Iraq's six central provinces.
Who wants to post odds for any of those preconditions materializing?
That was my (admittedly somewhat elliptical) point. It makes sense to pull troops out either if their job is done or if they're not doing anything useful. The administration isn't conceding the latter -- this is a claim that their job is done, which, based on the news from Iraq, is bullshit. I don't think it's going to happen either.
11:Nixon's Southern Strategy and ending the draft were 20-40 year plans.
Greenspan and CATO planned the death of Social Security in the early 80s by creating the Trust Fund that now is "meaningless paper" according to Bush. Yes, the GOP is in the habit of generational planning.
No question that it's been a long term conservative goal to get rid of social security (in the form it currently takes). I don't know why the the trust fund should be seen as a step in that.
Maybe similarly, it's been a long term liberal goal in the U.S. to achieve some form of universal health insurance. Since I think that will happen, I also think there are events in the past that will lead to that happening (but don't know which ones), and that some of those events took place with the goal in mind of in some way leading to universal health insurance coming into existence in the U.S.
13: Yeah, they had the same plan last year, too.
Nixon's Southern Strategy and ending the draft were 20-40 year plans.
They were plans for winning control of the government. We've since learned, though, that the GOP has precious little idea what it wants to do with control of the government, other than make itself and its cronies rich. "Starve the beast" was a lie they sold to Grover Norquist. The real GOP agenda is and always has been "loot, pillage, and hope to high hell we're retired or dead before it all falls down."
And to go back on-topic, apo's right. They always announce troop reductions just before severely reducing those reductions, just before putting in more troops anyway. What they want is the headline to give the impression that progress is being made. Beyond that, they're rather desperately treading water.
We won. The War on Terra™ is over.
Accordingly, there will be no more terrorism against anyone anywhere ever again.
The chocolate ration ... oh, the hell with it.
Meanwhile, today in the circus Italy beat Australia at the last minute.
The ref didn't score as many sending offs as the guy in the Portugal match, so he loses in the side-contest.
I'm bummed I didn't see the Italy-Australia match, even though I've read that it was pretty ugly. (After the Portugal-Netherlands match I had to sit back in stunned silence for a couple of minutes. It really is for the best that the Netherlands didn't tie it up; the last thing that match needed was more time.)
I'd like soccer a lot more if games didn't seem to be determined as much by penalties. and if players didn't dive and moan so much. American football, if the guy crashes to the ground clutching his knee, you know he's out for the game if not the season. Here, it's a strategy. Dive enough and you get a penalty kick which makes up for your total lack of offense.
Italy-Australia was ugly, but not that interesting. The Netherlands-Portugal match, while I'm glad it didn't go to extra time, had an intensity that I thought made it compelling. On the other hand, it was just about the mildest hockey game I've ever seen.
22: Had that match more time, it would have ended with a 5 v 5 game of long ball.
I thought Netherlands-Portugal was a good deal more fun to watch than England-Ecuador. I didn't watch today.
England-Ecuador was veddy, veddy dull. I have a commenter over at HoCB who maintains that he saw "flashes" of promise from England in the second half, but clearly he's got keener eyes than I.
If Portugal-Netherlands had gone on longer, it would have been 5 v. 5 with shivs.
Is anyone else getting sound on Ukraine v Switzerland? I understand it might be local weather or whatever, but I thought I heard an announcer say that this had something to do with the broadcaster in Germany.
I plan to sing the "If I don't get my football back" song until I get sound.
Oh, shit, that's on now? Are the Swiss getting pummelled?
No, there was a bad sound problem initially with this game. So far there seems to be no pummelling, although I have to admit that I'm less interested in this game than I have been in any game so far and haven't been paying much attention. Anyway, there's no score.
No score, both teams have hit the crossbar but look uncoordinated or just nervous. I've had sound the whole time.
I have sound now. But I was enjoying singing the single line I know of that song.
I plan to sing the "If I don't get my football back" song until I get sound.
I know soccer is a weak substitute, but football will be back at the end of the summer.
Puhleeze, apo. American football is teh suck.
Dive enough and you get a penalty kick which makes up for your total lack of offense.
But isn't this like life?
35 is just wrong. Not that soccer isn't a great game to watch too.
35: Puh-leeze, B. You're a girl, though, so I'll make allowances for your cute attempts to comment coherently on sports.
Say what you will about American football, but those guys earn their pay.
Although I have to admit that this game is really pretty fucking boring. And it's about to go into boring overtime at that.
This may be the worst game I've ever seen. But I've seen plenty of more boring games [coughing]England v Ecuador, Sweden v Germany, Italy v Australia[/coughing]
You know what's exciting, though? 3rd down play ends. Time out. Commercials. Field Goal. Commercials. Kickoff. Commercials. First down running play ends in bounds. Quarter ends. Commercials.
Ok, now it's just as boring as those other games. I wonder if teams have ever had every player miss the penalty kicks at the end.
Italy-Ukraine may turn out to be totally unwatchable.
Yes, I know everyone's commenting in the loneliest number thread right now, but I like the solitude over here.
You know what's exciting? College football overtime. (Format for you non-believers: each team gets one offensive series. At the end of two series, whoever is ahead wins.)
College football's overtime scheme is so completely superior to pro football's that I can't believe the latter hasn't adopted it yet.
To be specific, they each have offensive series, starting from deep in the opponent's territory, until one comes out with more points. This can go on for several iterations.
I wouldn't call Italy-Australia boring, but frustrating, sure. They don't seem to be talking about cities burning across the continent so that's something. Though, I was on a deserted Canberra street (that seems to be redundant) with a couple of people shouting angrily and smashing stuff. A grad student who had left the pub independently was a block behind me and said that he thought that "those drunkards were going to get you." (He apparently stayed within range to lend a hand if necessary.)
Anyway, 23 gets it right (though they did have some offense earlier on that was negated by the Aussie goalie's great play). I did say to myself, "My God, that's totally a penalty kick."
And, I don't want to blame anyone for jinxing their own team, but when Italy drew their last yellow card just before the end of the game, a certain prominent philosopher said "At least Australia can't complain about the officiating in this game."
a certain prominent philosopher
Geez, Weiner. Big head much?
Yeah, seriously. Go to one conference Down Under and now yer a big shot.
To be specific, they each have offensive series, starting from deep in the opponent's territory, until one comes out with more points. This can go on for several iterations.
That's right. I was trying to convey the idea that if team A scores, team B gets a chance to answer; it's not exactly sudden death. So much fun. do you go for a field goal and hope your defense can make the big play? do you go for two? can you possibly hear a play call in this stadium?
