Has the withdrawal already begun, without Bush knowing?

[Barrett808]

Working on an LTE, suggestions gladly accepted.

I suspect the withdrawal from Iraq has already begun in earnest, in spite of denials by various public figures.

We know that US forces have publicly "handed over control" in two places at least: Basra and Diyala. In Basra, this means Islamist militias, chiefly the Badr "Organization" and Sadr's Mehdi army. In Diyala province, control has been handed over to a former Saddam intelligence agent (read: "Mukhabarat"), known as Colonel Theya. He boasts that everything is peaceful in Diyala.

Even in war-torn Anbar province, we have reports of US forces withdrawing. A May 24th LA times story quotes an anonymous US military official, "(Commanders) can't use the word, but we're withdrawing."

What this represents is essentially the same desperate approach used in Fallujah, before the killings of the Blackwater mercenaries: Hand over authority to local strongmen and git. Since that policy has apparently been resurrected, we can expect more of the same in the rest of the country.

There are a few other bits of evidence that might strengthen this argument.

Gen. Barry McCaffrey recently testified, "This thing, the wheels are coming off," describing the alarming Army logistics situation. It appears that withdrawal will be required within a year in any case, simply for logistics reasons.

The LA Times reported last week that reconstruction money has run out. In the wake of Katrina, another $80 billion request for Iraq will likely be met with a great deal of resistance in Congress, even among Bush and war supporters. And especially among those whose seats are up in 2006. The other shoe dropped over the weekend, when it was revealed that the US government will go begging for charity to help restart the Iraq reconstruction effort. With little public oversight, and with billions of dollars unaccounted for, I expect few takers.

Now the question must be asked: Does Bush know that the Pentagon is actively withdrawing? He is famously intolerant of bad news, and there are persistent rumors that aides dread reporting to him. Is it too hard to believe that Donald Rumsfeld, after being shown the grim numbers of imminent, humiliating US defeat, gave the order to withdraw? And that he hasn't quite made time in his schedule to meet with Bush and deliver the bad news?

[tex-wyo-dem]

1. A "clandestine" withdrawal wouldn't surprise me in the least...

Admitting to failure of objectives and withdrawing under pressure from the "loony" anti-war activists would make their base blow arteries.

[Wickerman]

2. I don't know, MN sent 450 NG today

Well, they were staging to go to Iraq - and they were part of a contingency of 2,600 MN NG troops. That is in addition to all that are all ready there or have been there.

The article referenced is about a soldier who died in a car accident while on his way to the deployment. :(

http://startribune.com/stories/462/5621830.html

[Barrett808]

5. Claim has been that "temporary increases" will happen for the referendum

Which could be smoke screen.

[Wickerman]

7. These guys have either a year commitment or 18 mos

depending on unit. I think Bush likes having troops there to guard the oil.

[Karmakaze]

3. They aren't using the word withdrawl because it ISN'T

Its a repositioning...

And Bush does know about it because he ordered it. So what are they repositioning for that is so secret they can't even mention it? Does the word Iran ring any bells?

[Barrett808]

6. There's all this activity on the Syrian border...

...clearing the way for a supply line through Damascus to Iran?

[Karmakaze]

8. Hmm could be Syria...

A clever ploy - ramp up the pressure on Iran as a distraction from Syria.

Could be, could be...

[bemildred]

4. Why else the reduced attrition rate lately?

Withdrawal to where is the question.