withdraw-but-not-withdraw slowly, to death

* aravosis:

"I'm trying to fully comprehend if the Baker commission is adopting "cut & run" or "Vietnam"? Because it sounds a little of both.

What it sounds like they're saying is the following:

Tell the Iraqis we're pulling out, yes we are, but don't make any real plans to pull out because that would be setting a deadline/timetable, and those are bad things, unless they're good things. The fact that the Iraqis think WE have a deadline, that's good, because it will inspire them to fight harder. (I suppose we're just assuming that the Iraqis are stupid and that they don't read the New York Times and thus they don't know that Bush's threat to withdraw is apparently a feint.) But at the same time, the insurgency won't, somehow (I'm assuming with the help of magic pixie dust) find out that we have set a timetable for withdrawal (or then again, we haven't) and thus insurgents won't just wait for us to cut and run before they fight even harder.

A bit more trouble on the horizon, the plan wants us to kind of, sort of withdraw some of our troops, maybe to big bases in Iraq, or even to move them to surrounding countries. Well, that doesn't sound like bringing our boys home, and let's not forget, this war is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have, and our military is already overstretched and can't really fight any more wars, so how does this solution solve those problems? It doesn't. It also begs the very large question of, if our troops are withdrawing to finally get them the hell out of Iraq, then why deploy them on the periphery of Iraq, unless you're considering sending them back in, if needed, and if you are, then here we go all over again.

And finally, to the extent Bush does adopt a partial troop withdrawal, where does that leave the remaining tens of thousands of US service members still in Iraq? It leaves them with fewer comrades to support them. So in that sense, this is Vietnam in reverse. Rather than upping our engagement slowly, to death, we're going to withdraw-but-not-withdraw slowly, to death."

* bloomberg:

"Carlyle Group, the U.S. buyout firm that manages more than $44 billion worldwide, plans to hire as many as 15 people to buy companies and identify potential partners in the Middle East, North Africa and Turkey."

* UKTelegraph:

"Senior Pakistani officials are urging Nato countries to accept the Taliban and work towards a new coalition government in Kabul that might exclude the Afghan president Hamid Karzai.

Pakistan's foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, has said in private briefings to foreign ministers of some Nato member states that the Taliban are winning the war in Afghanistan and Nato is bound to fail. He has advised against sending more troops.

Western ministers have been stunned. "Kasuri is basically asking Nato to surrender and to negotiate with the Taliban," said one Western official who met the minister recently."

* amy:

"Advisor: Saudi Arabia Will Intervene in Iraq if US Withdraws
Meanwhile, an advisor to the Saudi Arabian government has declared Saudi Arabia will intervene in Iraq to protect the Sunni community if the United States withdraws. Writing in the Washington Post, the advisor, Nawaf Obaid, said the government of King Abdullah would arm and fund Sunni military leaders and help establish Sunni brigades to fight against Iranian-backed Shiite militas. Obaid writes: “Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks -- it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse.” The warning comes one week after Vice President Dick Cheney visited Saudi Arabia. The Bush administration initially said Cheney made the trip as part of a diplomatic push in the Middle East. But the Washington Post reports Cheney was “basically summoned” to visit King Abdullah."

* palo over at the RightWing LibertyPost thinks that GeorgeBush and Sibel are both heroes - so this is how she deals with Sibel's recent article which explains that GWB is a liar - Palo:

"because this is true (what Siebl sez), and because I believe Bush has good character

I wonder why?

is he unaware of what Sibel knows, is this info (deliberately) kept from him
or is it because the criminals already have nuclear weapons and are blackmailing our President, threatening to use them against us if he does not toe the line the criminals want"

- meanwhile, Palo says:

"Tony Blair is in cahoots with the drug dealers... of course Blair knows what is going on