Looks Like The NY Times Got (And Reprinted) The Memo

From The Politico comes word of a new strategy for anti-war groups, which have failed in their repeated attempts to cut funding for our troops in Iraq:

In recognition of hard political reality, the groups instead will lower their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come.

The groups believe this switch in strategy can draw contrasts with Republicans that will help Democrats gain ground in November and bring the votes to pass more dramatic measures. But it is a long way from the early months of 2007, when Democrats were freshly in power and momentum for a dramatic shift in Iraq policy seemed overpowering.

And the NY Times editors cover this by reprinting the newly agreed talking points; here is their lead editorial:

Don’t Tie the Next President’s Hands

President Bush is discussing a new agreement with Baghdad that would govern the deployment of American troops in Iraq. With so many Americans adamant about bringing our forces home as soon as possible, a sentiment we strongly share, Mr. Bush must not be allowed to tie the hands of his successor and ensure the country’s continued involvement in an open-ended war.

That is the new message, all right.  Interesting that the Times editors simply reprinted what was sitting on the fax machine rather than covering this as a political story, but there we are.

The Captain has more.

Comments

[Other Tom]

I have this abiding question: WHY do they want to bring the troops home? Why home from Iraq, and not from the Bosnia, Okinawa, Germany, Japan, etc.?

[Jane]

I have the exact same question OT.

[RichatUF]

push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government

Interesting, the exact thing that the Red Witch called on Obama to support. However, isn't it a bit dangerous. What if it comes for a vote, before the convention, and then fails? It would be difficult to square the leading dems to duck out on the vote and an embarrasment if the so strong dems can't get a "popular" piece of legistlation about an "unpopular" war against an unpopular, lameduck president. But that is just me

Other Tom-

Why home from Iraq, and not from the Bosnia, Okinawa, Germany, Japan, etc.?

Curious indeed-wonder how Hussein or the Red Witch would weasel out of sending troops into Darfur, or Chad, or whatever other international social work project that runs counter to US national interests. Maybe they could send Maddy Albright to the UN to "show the will of the international community" like they did before in Rawanda or Sierra Leone.

[Bill in AZ]

TM, just in case you didn't get the 2nd page of that fax (I think you did, you're just not letting on because your "Go McCain" post covered it well), here is what it said:

*************************
Townhouse Page 2

uh, folks, the "Go Huckabee" thing didn't work. Stupid polls, stupid bloggers...
At any rate, DNC says McCain is the next least electable Rep in the race, so from now until further notice, it's "Go McCain". Hopefully the stupid neocon bloggers won't pick up on it so quickly this time.

And for petes sake, this is yet another reminder: He who MUST not be named [ed- that would be Thompson] MUST NOT BE NAMED!

We have counseled that idiot Olberman for trying to make a big deal about his virgins comment. We don't care how big a gaffe he makes, HE MUST NOT BE NAMED anywhere in the press. Even bad press is good for the guy, because stupid neocon Rep voters will want to know who this "Thompson" guy is.
**********************

[MayBee]

They've found a way around giving discount ad rates to the likes of MoveOn.org.
I bet somewhere on the NYT hard drive is a copy of the discarded Sept 26 editorial, "Gen Petraeus or Gen Betrayus?"

[Porchlight]

Heh, that's great, Bill. Says it all really.

[Lurking Observer]

So, Dubya was obligated to abide by Kyoto, a treaty negotiated by Clinton, but which Clinton never submitted to Congress for formal ratification b/c Congress indicated that it would never pass it?

But Dubya is also obligated to not commit the US to anything that the next President might disagree with?

Shorter NYT: Republicans, if they win the White HOuse, have an obligation not to do anything that Democratic successors might disagree with.

[anduril]

Here's an interesting military story:

Beyond Iran’s ‘Go Fast’ Boats: Critical Military Challenges for the 21st Century

[AK]

Why home from Iraq, and not from the Bosnia, Okinawa, Germany, Japan, etc.?

That's easy. If we don't have a presence in Okinawa, the left won't be able to use the euphamism "redeploy" when they really mean "retreat."

[tamdar]

Why home from Iraq, and not from the Bosnia, Okinawa, Germany, Japan, etc.?

Well, for one thing, the troops in those other places, save for Bosnia to a degree, are not there to enforce the government in those countries. I was stationed on Okinawa for over a year and never once patrolled the streets or manned a perimeter with a machine gun.

We have troops staged in forward areas, which happen to be some of the countries you listed (Korea should be in there), but only to get closer to the potential threats such as China or North Korea.

I support staying in Iraq until the government there can maintain its own security, and we shouldn't leave in such a way that we'll have to go back under even worse circumstances a few years down the road (if we can figure out how to do that), but the situations are different.

[Ron J]

Does anybody really care what the NYT says anymore?

[Dann]

tamdar,

I think the point being made is that we were in control of Japan and Germany for a while. Over time our role changed from occupation to reconstruction to being advisors to being forward deployed in a friendly country against other threats. The administration has suggested that our role in Iraq will go through a similar shift as the Iraqis take control of their country.

Essentially, if leaving our forces in a forward deployed position following a conflict is a problem, then why are those same folks calling for our forces to be brought home following WWII, et. al.??

Regards,
Dann

[garrett]

Troops stationed in Japan patrolled, supervised government and sought recidivist Nazis (in Germany) and Japanese imperilists for years after the peace treaties were signed. Their presence slowly morphed into protection for the nacent governments/emerging democracies and then into forward bases to contain Chinese and Russian communism. Expect a similar transition in Iraq.

It is Bosnia that the left shouold be crying for us to abandon. and it is well time for us to leave France and Italy and move to forward bases in Poland and Hungary where they have an appreciation for hard-won freedoms.

[bgates]

So much for the importance of diplomacy and multilateral security arrangements.

I wonder if people read this stuff, consider it, and decide, "yes, that makes sense to me," or if they just swallow what the Times feeds them because it's the Times.

[Topsecretk9]

From The Politico comes word of a new strategy for anti-war groups...And the NY Times editors cover this by reprinting the newly agreed talking points; here is their lead editorial:

TOWNHOUSE baby!

[Topsecretk9]

Townhouse Page 2

BillAz.

Darn, I'm getting slow.

[tamdar]

Essentially, if leaving our forces in a forward deployed position following a conflict is a problem, then why are those same folks calling for our forces to be brought home following WWII, et. al.??

The troops in Japan and Germany are there to be in forward positions for US strategic and logistical reasons, not to enforce the Japanese and German governments.

After the Japanese surrendered, their emperor and MacArthur formed a government that the people accepted. They didn't form into an insurgency. I think the situation in Germany was more hostile but there weren't organizations like Al Qaeda fomenting instability. The Japanese resistance crumbled with the signing of the surrender documents on the Missouri. Accounts of duty in post-war Japan that I've read make it sound like pretty good duty. They didn't go on combat patrols in Tokyo or Osaka.

The situation in Iraq is different than Japan. Japanese mainland was never invaded. Bombed, but not invaded on the ground. It wasn't a battlefield the way Iraq is. There were no outside agitators nor the remnants of an army nor sectarian jealousies and grievances. Japan was a consolidated nation for centuries, with a cohesive society, not an artifact of European constructs. There was no equivalent of Iran waiting for the US to leave a power vacuum to exploit.

It's different.

[boris]

not to enforce the Japanese and German governments

Absurdly overstated. For a long period after the war that actually was the case. The situation with East Germany was hardly comfy.

Had East Germany been as agressive as North Korea the US would have toughed it out just like NK.

[Doug Santo]

I have to say I think Tamdar is wrong with respect to post-war conditions in Japan. My recollection is that there was indeed internal strife within Japanese society and the strife surfaced as terrorist acts agianst train stations and the like. Also, Tamdar is wrong in implying the US has a strategic interest in Japan and Germany, but not in Iraq. The Middle East is today's point of ignition the same way Japan and Germany were yesterday's. The US has definite short and long term tactical and strategic interests in the Middle East. Iraq is the right place (along with our other gulf bases) for forward deployed US assets to try to exert some control in the region.

Doug Santo
Pasadena, CA

[megrez80]

For all the sacrifice this country has made in Iraq, we'd better get a permanent forward deployment out of this. The better to deal with Iran when we need to (and we will).

[Steve-o]

Not that I agree with the left, but..

Why must we leave Iraq and not those other places? No blood for oil! And, and...Halliburton! Plus, if we get out of Iraq, it will be more difficult for BushHitler-CheneyMcHalliburton to attack Iran!

Sheesh, you people are slow learners.

[megrez80]

For all the sacrifice this country has made in Iraq, we'd better get a permanent forward deployment out of this. The better to deal with Iran when we need to (and we will).

[Europan Sea Creature]

Well, for one thing, the troops in those other places, save for Bosnia to a degree, are not there to enforce the government in those countries.

That's precisely why they're in S Korea today.

It is also precisely why they were in Germany and Japan for 50 years.

Anyways, if they're NOT needed in those countries, why are we only removing troops from somewhere they clearly ARE needed?

After the Japanese surrendered, their emperor and MacArthur formed a government that the people accepted. They didn't form into an insurgency. I think the situation in Germany was more hostile but there weren't organizations like Al Qaeda fomenting instability.

In both cases, that was only true because of two very unpleasant realities: one, they had already suffered millions of deaths and the destruction of vital infrsastructure, and would have experienced mass starvation without our help; two, they knew would have suffered a far crueler occupation by Russia had we not occupied them.

[kim]

We are in Iraq at Sistani's invitation and will leave when he asks.
======================================

[Mike G in Corvallis]

U.S. out of Germany! No blood for sauerkraut!

[Jaded]

I will tell you why they want the troops out of Iraq...they committed themselves for 3 straight years to undermining this War and damn it they will have their way.....however they get it.

Hillary had the talking points on this as well in the debate the other night...this idiots have become so obvious.

[kim]

U.S. out of Korea! No plasma for Hyundais.

Slip the juice to me, Bruce.
================

[MarkJ]

This, for me, was the best part of the Politico article:

“There was a consensus that last year was not productive,” John Isaacs, executive director of Council for a Livable World, said of a meeting attended by a coalition of anti-war groups last week. “Our expectations were dashed.”

Now compare the above with Emperor Hirohito's August 1945 speech accepting the Allied terms of surrender:

"But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone...the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest."

Shucks, I'd say Isaacs and the rest of anti-war buds have just experienced a "Hirohito Moment." Looks like the Iraq War has "developed not necessarily to their advantage" and they're now desperately trying to save face.

If this were the Battle of the Alamo, Isaacs & Co. would now be at the point where they were either "strategically redeploying" into the chapel for their last stand or shimmying over the walls and high-tailing for the river.

[tamdar]

Essentially, if leaving our forces in a forward deployed position following a conflict is a problem, then why are those same folks calling for our forces to be brought home following WWII, et. al.??

The troops in Japan and Germany are there to be in forward positions for US strategic and logistical reasons, not to enforce the Japanese and German governments.

After the Japanese surrendered, their emperor and MacArthur formed a government that the people accepted. They didn't form into an insurgency. I think the situation in Germany was more hostile but there weren't organizations like Al Qaeda fomenting instability. The Japanese resistance crumbled with the signing of the surrender documents on the Missouri. Accounts of duty in post-war Japan that I've read make it sound like pretty good duty. They didn't go on combat patrols in Tokyo or Osaka.

The situation in Iraq is different than Japan. Japanese mainland was never invaded. Bombed, but not invaded on the ground. It wasn't a battlefield the way Iraq is. There were no outside agitators nor the remnants of an army nor sectarian jealousies and grievances. Japan was a consolidated nation for centuries, with a cohesive society, not an artifact of European constructs. There was no equivalent of Iran waiting for the US to leave a power vacuum to exploit.

It's different.

[Just Some Poor Schmuck]

The Democrats have painted themselves into a corner,

If we win in Iraq, we win in spite of them, if we lose, we lose because of them,

if the former, they get no credit, if the latter they own whatever comes next.

[Steve]

They want to bring the troops home because having a long term presence in Iraq is in the national interest. They must oppose anything that is good for the country and in our interest, particularly if it can be interpreted as politically bad for them which of course is their foremost consideration..

Yes, they are that sick.

[Bill in AZ]

TS9: "Darn, I'm getting slow"

naw... you're prolly just working - like I'm *supposed* to be doing...

[tamdar]

Why home from Iraq, and not from the Bosnia, Okinawa, Germany, Japan, etc.?

Well, for one thing, the troops in those other places, save for Bosnia to a degree, are not there to enforce the government in those countries. I was stationed on Okinawa for over a year and never once patrolled the streets or manned a perimeter with a machine gun.

We have troops staged in forward areas, which happen to be some of the countries you listed (Korea should be in there), but only to get closer to the potential threats such as China or North Korea.

I support staying in Iraq until the government there can maintain its own security, and we shouldn't leave in such a way that we'll have to go back under even worse circumstances a few years down the road (if we can figure out how to do that), but the situations are different.

[submandave]

"The troops in Japan and Germany are there to be in forward positions for US strategic and logistical reasons."

And, of course, with a hostile Iran seeking nuclear capabilities, unrest in nuclear power Pakistan, continued efforts by al Queda and others to undermine the KSA government, Syria actively seeking to thwart democratic efforts in Lebanon, continues terrorist support against our ally Israel and continuing combat againat Taliban forces in Afghanistan there are no "strategic and logistical reasons" whatsoever to have a forward presence in Iraq or to actively work to strenthen them as a regional ally.

[Gary]

Easy. A strong alliance with Iraq is good for the United States. Otherwise, it's good for the enemy, so knowing which side the NY Times, or the Dems are on, is easy.

[boris]

the troops in those other places, save for Bosnia to a degree, are not there to enforce the government

Broken record.

Military in Iraq is protecting the government not "enforcing" it. Like Germany like South Korea. Providing stability and infrastructure to support economic growth, like Japan. We stay we win and so does Iraq. Close enough.

[GMax]

Man oh man. Shots are fired by both sides on a fairly regular basis in the DMZ ( one of the worst named places on the planet, there is nothing demilitarized about it is where both sides have massed troops with live ammo ).

It is not so long ago that Berlin was a walled off enclave with troops at checkpoints and troops patroling with live ammo. And a bit more distant but not so long ago we had to break a blockade on the nonwalled and free portion of Berlin.

Ask the Hungarians or the Czechs about the troops our men were facing.

Kosovo may not have any shooting today, but how long would that last once we left.

[JorgXMcKie]

If tamdar would just read his own posts carefully, he'd change his own mind. Most of what he posts supports troops staying in Iraq.

[Cecil Turner]

. . . there are no "strategic and logistical reasons" whatsoever to have a forward presence in Iraq . . . [/sarcasm]

No kidding. Certainly more so than for countries like China(1) or the DPRK(2), against which the use of ground troops are either (1) not feasible or (2) unnecessary.

[kim]

We'll be there a long time balancing Sunni and Shia. In Sistani We trust.
================

[Cincinnatus]

The US out of Kuwait!!! No blood for ...

um...

crap I'm stuck.

[Topsecretk9]

Via Drudge

NYT THURSDAY: BILL CLINTON FEELING THE HEAT, LOSING TEMPER... DETAILS... DEVELOPING...

Is it me, or does the NYT's seem a little lamely late to the party these days?

I dunno, they just sound a little desperately trying to keep up.

[Topsecretk9]

Via Drudge

NYT THURSDAY: BILL CLINTON FEELING THE HEAT, LOSING TEMPER... DETAILS... DEVELOPING...

Is it me, or does the NYT's seem a little lamely late to the party these days?

I dunno, they just sound a little desperately trying to keep up.

[PeterUK]

US out of America!!

No blood for buffalo.

[hit and run]

US out of Buffalo!!!

No blood for Tim Russert

[Paul Zrimsek]

US out of Turkey!!!

Someone please send us some more turkey.

[Don Meaker]

I think Tamdar notes the difference between forward deployment and security assistance. Other have made the point that there is a normal progression between occupation (now over) security assistance (continuing) and forward deployment (perhaps someday).

Forward deployment is useful to the US. The price of being accepted as a forward deployment force is either cash, or a long history of security assistance.

And we are still in Cuba and Puerto Rico, since the Spanish American war. No blood for cigars or suntans!

[Crew v1.0]

Nobody calls Obama on this shallow, empty pose as post-partisan savior. Say what you will about Mac, he and Lieberman are the authentic post-partisans.

[Dave E.]

This just in:

"The surrender surrenderers are not there. They're not in the anti-war movement. There are no surrender surrenderers there. Never. They're not at all."

[Steve White]

Let's carry the argument about occupation --> security assistance --> forward deployment to its logical conclusion. That is, one maintains forward deployment for the period of time in which it is necessary.

To wit: there is no need for forward deployment in Germany any more. We fought it, beat it, occupied it, assisted it, and used it for forward deployment. We have no enemy in Europe any more (Putin's Russia isn't an enemy for purposes of this argument).

We may have a need for forward deployment in Japan, and we certainly do in Korea, to ensure that a democratic, first-world state continues to thrive and evolve.

Likewise, we'll have a need for a forward deployment in Iraq, as the Iraqi government and people start their upward movement towards first-world status and require protection from hegemonistic powers that would otherwise crush it -- i.e., Iran.

So if we accept that argument, and understand Tamdar's flawed argument, then the real solution is this: remove all/most of our forward deployed units in Europe, and start preparing for a transition to a long-term, forward deployment in Iraq.