Is the war's end in sight? Officials say a "sharp drawdown of troops is likely to begin by the middle of next year, with roughly two-thirds of the current force of 150,000 moving out by late 2008 or early 2009" (Washington Post).
What a relief--except to those soldiers facing death or dismemberment in Iraq over the next 16-plus months. And their families. And the taxpayers.
Official statements are often confusing. In May, when Congress called for troop withdrawal, President Bush said "It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing.” Six weeks later, officials are telling the enemy just that.
In 2003, Bush promised a short war (USA Today). Now, officials want a long-term occupation, like Korea--which has lasted 54 years (WaPo). They unveiled this plan a few weeks ago, like a new idea. Today's WaPo says the plan "echoes the core conclusion of a Joint Chiefs of Staff planning group that last fall secretly considered three possible courses in Iraq."
Apparently, the Bush Administration has trouble accurately predicting events (or disclosing info). For example,
in June 2006, Administration officials said:
"'the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007'" (Think Progress citing NYT).
A year later, they say troop-cuts won't happen before 2008-09. Psyche!
Even before the Iraq war, the Administration had accuracy problems (aside from the WMD and Saddam-9/11 issues). In 2002-03, Bush insisted he was committed to pursuing diplomatic strategies with Iraq; a 2004 book by Bob Woodward shows Bush actually started pursuing invasion strategies in December 2001 (Washington Post).
Anyone watching pre-invasion media coverage saw evidence of Bush's accuracy probs. One day, officials pushed for war based on WMDs. Another day, it was Saddam's alleged connection to 9/11 (which Bush, himself, debunked months after the Iraq invasion). Days before the invasion, the battle cry became "Free the Iraqi people."
I remember thinking, if you have one legitimate reason to start a war, you don't waste time (and tax dollars) concocting other reasons. Here we are, 3,500+ dead soldiers and $433 billion later.
Understandably, the media failed to question official pre-war hype back in 2003, terrified of being labeled terrorist-friendly (Bill Moyers/Truthout). Perhaps networks and newspapers will do better from here on out.
Comments