Washington's 'Dannatt moment' approaching?
So is the Bush administration finally coming close to experiencing the "Dannatt moment" that I have been waiting for ever since October 2006, when the British Army's chief of staff, Sir Richard Dannatt, publicly acknowledged that his troops would be much more constructively employed in Afghanistan than in the sinkhole of Iraq?
It seems this moment might be approaching. The NYT's Steven Lee Myers is reporting in Sunday's paper that,
- The Bush administration is considering the withdrawal of additional combat forces from Iraq beginning in September, according to administration and military officials, raising the prospect of a far more ambitious plan than expected only months ago.
Such a withdrawal would be a striking reversal from the nadir of the war in 2006 and 2007.
One factor in the consideration is the pressing need for additional American troops in Afghanistan...
But as we know, the Prez never took the ISG's advice, choosing instead to pour additional troops into Iraq in that episode of fairly meaningless-- but very expensive-- swagger known as "the surge."
Myers points out-- rightly, imho-- that,
- Any troop reductions announced in the heat of the presidential election could blur the sharp differences between the candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, over how long to stay in Iraq.
Also, if any serious US troop withdrawal is to be orderly, rather than a humiliating and choatic rout, it needs to be executed within the context of a radically different strategic-political situation... one that involves all the elements I have been writing about quite clearly for more than three years now.
And yes, that would certainly include broad, UN-convened negotiations involving all the US and all of Iraq's neighbors-- including Iran and Syria.
No sign of that yet. So that is the real breakthrough that we all still need to work for.
The Iraqis simply won't put up with US forces staying any longer.
That's OK then: we'll send them to Afghanistan whose government is considerably more pliable (there being no Sistani equivalent).
What would they do in Afghanistan? The only point in having troops there is to menace the Chinese, Iranians, Russians and Pakistanis at the same time. But why? All this does is drive these countries into each other's arms.
The US would exert far more influence over Afghanistan by withdrawing and boosting India's role which is far more acceptable to the Afghans.
Placate the military/industrial/governmental complex w/Afghanistan redeployment? Time to change the first word of the name of your site.
My 2 centimes, for what it's worth, is that it is difficult for the US to have a Dannatt moment. The Brits are no longer engaged in Iraq - that is what Dannatt was saying - and it is simple for them to just pull out. Of course, not so for the US. Major consequences, even if we all desire intensely such a US pull-out.
At the other end, I suppose the parallel is true: both the Brits and the US have the same objectives, the impossible task of defeating an undefeatable people. Neither has yet understood the pointlessness of the task. It will take a while yet.
Bevin, it's curious to see this behavior from an Iraqi government that for years many people on this board have been badmouthing as a puppet government. I didn't think that government was as pliable as "puppet" implies. And that goes for the Afghan government as well, especially with growing criticism about the civilian death tolls from bombings. More ground troops would force the US/NATO/ISAF away from the air strike blunt instrument. The troops can defend Afghanistan against the Taliban, not against any undefeatable people.