Tom Englehardt (Tomdispatch) wrote a rambling masterpiece yesterday called "Will Daddy's Boys Extend the War?" I'd add this question: "How complicit will the Democrats be in the extension?" Answers to both (emphasis added) are probably more or less in the following:
If you happen to have lived through the Vietnam era, then think of this as the beginning of the season of non-withdrawal withdrawal gestures. The key word right now is "redeployment," something Senator Carl Levin, who will soon take over the Armed Services Committee, is pushing hard. His modest drawdown plan, however, is not even meant to begin for another four to six months and offers no timetable or any particular end in sight. ...
Levin does, however, make it clear that redeployment and departure are two different creatures. In the form of some kind of military advisory group (not to speak of our massive new embassy in the heart of Baghdad and a few of the massive bases we've built), he expects us to be in Iraq into the distant future.
Of course, there are perfectly good conventional wisdom reasons why Levin's plans are s-o-o-o measured, s-o-o-o leisurely. The Iraq Study Group, after all, won't even propose anything till around Christmas, and (emphasis added) ...
We now have to wait for the Gates confirmation hearings; the ISG recommendations (and possibly those from an alternate White House version of the same); endless consideration of them; and, barring an unlikely flat turn-down from an increasingly cornered administration, the time to implement those policies and check out the results (which are guaranteed to be deeply disappointing, if not disastrous). Six months to a year could easily pass before it becomes obvious to Americans that we're not really heading out those Iraqi gates.
And it's worth remembering, Levin represents our party's 'liberal' -- okay, 'establishment liberal' -- position on Iraq. I.e., the standard Kerry-Kennedy wing position on Iraq.
Brother.
Not that eventually troops levels won't drop. Englehardt describes the most likely scenario would involve a "long-term" U.S. forces drawdown to about 50,000 troops. Those numbers fitting perfectly the several permanent fortresss towns being constructed, and the imperial emerald city in Baghdad.
But how "long-term" are we talking about? And how would that work, only 50,000 troops?
For the first question, Englehardt depresses us by bringing up Nixon's Vietnam and his flailing about after the Tet Offensive (emphasis added):
... As a "turning point" in that conflict, it was still followed by another seven years of war. Almost as many Americans, and probably more Vietnamese, died in the period after Tet as before.
That's a lot of years.
As for the second question, more Vietnam War history but it boils down to one word, airpower. Englehardt quotes Seymour Hersh ("A key element of the drawdown plans, not mentioned in the President's public statements, is that the departing American troops will be replaced by American airpower") and sums up:
In the post-Tet period, we had to live through a Senator-Levin-style near complete withdrawal of American ground troops from Vietnam under the pressure of a disintegrating army and rising antiwar feeling at home, only to see the use of U.S. air power escalate dramatically to fill the power gap. Expect some modified, scaled-down version of this Nixon-era "Vietnamization" program in Iraq.
It won't be pretty.
After quoting a buried paragraph in a November 14th AP wire report ("U.S. forces raided the homes of some Sadr followers, and U.S. jets fired rockets on Shula, their northwest Baghdad neighborhood, residents said. Police said five residents were killed, although a senior Sadr aide put the death toll at nine.") Englehardt adds:
...This incident assumedly took place somewhere in the vast Baghdad slum of Sadr city. In other words, we're talking about American planes regularly sending rockets or bombs into relatively heavily populated urban areas. All you have to do is imagine such a thing happening in an American city to grasp the barbarism involved.
... as the Iraqi chaos and strife grows while the American public increasingly backs off, air power will be one answer. You can count on that. And air power -- especially in or "near" cities -- simply means civilian carnage. It will be called "collateral damage" (if anyone bothers to call it anything at all), but -- make no mistake -- it will be at the heart of any new strategy that calls for "redeployment" but does not mean to get us out of Iraq.
Englehardt leaves us with several final thoughts (I told you it was rambling) but here are the most chilling:
... perhaps the disaster behind us will be nothing compared to the disaster ahead, especially if Daddy's Boys, the Iraq Study Group, other Democratic and Republican movers and shakers, and all those generals and former generals floating around our world decide that this isn't the moment to rediscover a Colin Powell-style "exit strategy," but "one last chance" to succeed by any definition in Iraq. Then, god help us -- and the Iraqis. Sooner or later, we'll undoubtedly be gone from a land so determinedly hostile to being occupied by us, but that end moment could still be a long, long time in coming.
... So hold onto your hats. Tragedy and more tragedy seems almost guaranteed, and the Pentagon has just submitted to Congress a staggering $160 billion supplemental appropriation request in order to continue its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
... Now, add in endless months or years of non-withdrawal withdrawal plans, keep in mind the likelihood that American air power will be ratcheted up, and you have a formula for further carnage, collapses and disintegrations of every sort, coups, assassinations, civil war, and god knows what else.
And to think, we just had an election where the number one issue was Iraq (see the ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Nov. 1-4 in pollingreport.com). And, we have these as the latest Iraq polling results:
"Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?"
Favor 33%
Oppose 63%
Unsure 4%
CNN Poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation. Nov. 17-19, 2006. N=1,025 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
Well, at least those poll results aren't depressing. Happy Thanksgiving!