Surge Dirge-Bush administration appears to have given up hope of maintaining ’surge’ strategy...

[babylonsister]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/01/1603/

Surge Dirge
Bush administration appears to have given up hope of maintaining ’surge’ strategy into next year.
by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - Despite President George W. Bush’s victory last week in his protracted battle with Congressional Democrats for unconditional funding for the Iraq war at least through September, his administration appears to have given up hope that it can maintain his “surge” strategy well into next year and even beyond.

A slew of news articles and columns by well-connected journalists and analysts over the past week has reported that the White House now believes U.S. troop levels in Iraq — currently nearing the 165,000 “surge” target set in January — must start coming down by early 2008 at the latest, and rather quickly after that.

The new conventional wisdom is that Bush, however grudgingly, has now accepted key recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG), or, as he called it during a press conference late last week, “Plan B-H” after the ISG’s co-chairs, former Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton. The plan was released in early December.

“Yes, that same Baker-Hamilton plan now seems to be official White House policy,” wrote David Ignatius in his column in the Washington Post Thursday, entitled “Time for ‘Plan B-H’ in Iraq?” “Administration officials insist that the president supported it all along, though you could have fooled me.”

While it did not rule out a short-term surge lasting no more than a few months, the ISG’s main military recommendation was to withdraw virtually all U.S. combat troops — about half of the current deployment — by Mar. 31, 2008 and refocus the remaining contingent on training Iraqi troops, protecting U.S. installations, and attacking suspected al Qaeda forces.

While that deadline is unlikely to be met, the New York Times reported last weekend that administration policy-makers were developing “concepts” for reducing U.S. troops strength in Iraq to 100,000 by the middle of the 2008 presidential campaign next summer.

more...

[AndyA]

1. This sounds like a flip flop to me.

And we know that Republicans don't flip flop, right? :sarcasm:

[blueworld]

2. It sounds like more lies to me

I'm pretty confident he'll come up with a myriad of reasons as we B-H along why this must be modified or that must be adapted...the usual "nibble along the edges until the whole thing is gone" strategy. It exhausts the public & the press, confuses issues & makes it impossible to focus on just one fight.

I watched Karen Switakowski (spelling apologies, if due) on LINK TV last night as she explained why the US is building three permanent bases in Iraq. I don't believe the neocons will actually withdraw American forces regardless of the fairy tales they tell before the election.

I can hear the cash registers now if those oil contracts go through: "We need the American forces to protect our investment", kaching.