FOLLOW UP - BAM’S PLAN FOR IRAQ

Roman Around ^ | 27 February 2009 | Andrew Roman

[andrew roman]

Fielding e-mails about the Obama plan to reduce troop levels in Iraq by the end of August, 2010 to anywhere from 35,000 to 50,000 troops, I am getting roundly attacked on the supposed naivety – or knee-jerk reaction – of my position in the piece I posted earlier today called “QUICK THOUGHTS ON THE BAM PLAN TO SCRAM.”

One close friend wrote: "What do you mean this one is 'hard to take'? Are you aware that Obama is actually following the Bush plan here?"

I'm missing some of the finer nuances, I'm being told. This really isn't a withdrawal, I'm being reminded. This is only a political move to make nice with the radical lefties who are starting to gripe a bit about Messianic campaign promises. Obama can't really get out of Iraq completely, they're saying to me, because he can't let that country descend into chaos. If I'd just stop reacting from my ideological perch here on the right, and actually put some thought into these things, I'd be able to understand that.

Fox News even has a story about ...

[ETL]

"BAM’S PLAN FOR IRAQ"

His "plan" is to turn it over as quickly as possible to the Russia, China and Venezuela-backed Iranians. Gaining control of Iraq would be of enormous benefit to this group as they go about trying to displace the U.S. on the global stage.

[Billthedrill]

Well, yes, it’s pretty much what Bush had in mind, but announcing a timetable in advance is simply not very bright. It takes away tactical flexibility - they surge, we can’t respond - and will place the remaining troops in more danger since they will be attractive targets just before the deadline, for propaganda purposes. A hundred dead Americans in the last couple of weeks and the terrorists declare a military victory. That’s why you don’t do what Bambi just did. That’s why Bush didn’t.