Reuters Watch
Could Reuters get any worse? Read this report and decide:
NEW YORK (Reuters) – The Bush administration is considering withdrawing additional troops from Iraq beginning in September, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions, citing administration and military officials.
The withdrawal, which the Times said would constitute a marked reversal from the war’s darkest days of 2006-2007, stemmed partly from the need for more U.S. troops in Afghanistan to fight the rising insurgency by the Taliban and other fighters. U.S. and allied casualties there have outpaced those in Iraq in recent months.
“Withdrawal” is generally something armies are forced to do after a “reversal.” In other words, Reuters is using the language of defeat to describe a strategic victory in Iraq. In fact all Reuters will admit to is a “consensus among officials that fewer forces are needed in Iraq.” And even that phrase has a “despite” in front and hints of impending doom in Afghanistan at the end. Victory sandwiched in between defeats.
For Reuters, I guess it goes down better that way.
This is better termed “economy of force”. You move your military assets around to better engage the enemy.
The situation in Afghanistan was relatively quiet and thus allowed more effort to be focused in Iraq. That situation is now different. Taliban and drug gangs are attempting a higher profile and are thus needful of more attention (killing).
In WWII, as Guadalcanal was secured, combat assets moved on into the Central Pacific.
Not a difficult concept, except for the clueless criminal liberal press.
I swear it’s like listening to your favorite football team on the radio and the only thing you hear is when the other team gets a first down or scores.
So you go to the web and find out that your team is winning 47 -3.
Um…. No. A RETREAT is ‘generally something armies are forced to do after a “reversal.” ‘
Personally, as a long-time hawk (and a retired Navy officer) I figure that if the Iraqis are comfortable handling their own security, then GWB should privately tell the Iraqi leaders “If we have to come back and clean up this mess again, we won’t like it” while telling the world publicly “The United States will work with Iraqi authorities to handle the redeployment of American forces to other assignments.”
Personally, I think the Iraqi parliament wants some reassurances that we will leave when they want us to, and not set up something like Subic Bay or Clark Air Base in the Philippines. (We steyed there from WWII to 1991, when Mt. Pinatubo half-buried the place. )
Ken Mitchell is right. And with oil at 150+ a barrel, staying in Iraq is looking downright appealing. The Philippines did not have that (only access to Asia and fun bars/bargirls).
Roto Reuters is incapable of telling the truth. Some day Roto Reuters and the Associated (with Terrotist) Press will pay like the NY and LA slimes are paying today. They will find that the unemployment lines are long and the pay small.
Keep in mind that Reuters officially holds the policy that one’s man terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. If they ever use the word terrorist, it is always in quotes. So as I read Reurters’s “reports” I always do so with a jaundiced eye.