"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Friday, August 24, 2007

Msm Works to Out-Pace the Administration

From the LA Times:

“The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders over the course of the war.”

Is how the article at LA Times opens. The “potential rift” is a seed among many meant to plant doubt in who to believe and what is reality. A potential rift for one assumes the generals and administration do not communicate; if a “news” source can get this, let’s comfortably assume the administration knows as well.

Part of the rift portent could be that:

“Any discord among the top U.S. generals could be awkward for Bush, who professes to rely heavily on advice from military leaders.”

The president only “professes” which is based on past “anonymous sources” and some general officers. If the president sided with these few naysayers all would be fine according to the msm I’m sure. The “profess” is their mistrust of the administrations leaning toward the 90% of general officers that probably don’t see the same issue as the handful that have whined have.

The LA Times and others will continue to report with “anonymous officials” as it adds all the more dirt to the build-up in the “war of the analogies”

Curiosity enters the equation when:

“According to a senior administration official, the Joint Chiefs in recent weeks have pressed concerns that the Iraq war has degraded the U.S. military's ability to respond, if needed, to other threats, such as Iran.”

I say curiosity due to the fact Iran will have to nuke us to wake us up and I don’t think they’ll be in that much of a hurry to do that at the moment as they’ve got too much going for them through their meddling in the region. After Iraq we should just have a parade military…we don’t deserve to be defended.

This is all not really news when you stop to think about it. It is just par for the course, when planning and the like continues to take place. The military cannot just one day jump up and decide it is leaving the next day.

The chiefs are pushing for a significant decrease in troop levels once the current buildup comes to an end -- perhaps to about half of the 20 combat brigades now in Iraq. Along with support units, that would lower the U.S. presence to fewer than 100,000 troops from the current 162,000.”

Perhaps that will be doable, perhaps not as prescience of this kind is only so much preparation toward not believing Petraeus in July on his report due in mid-September.

Part of the mission of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is to ensure military is prepared for future necessities; not having enough military to take on an Iran does not make Iraq any less important.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/8421644533961969036

  • DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

    Please give this Post/Blog a Vote - Top Blogs

    © blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks