NYT Reveals Secret Briefing On The Painfully Obvious
By Captain Ed on Media Watch
Captain's Quarters
The New York Times has revealed yet another war secret, this time publishing details of negotiations between CENTCOM and the Iraqi government on troop reductions in Iraq. Michael Gordon reveals that General George Casey has briefed the Pentagon on specific troop reductions that will cumulatively reduce troop strength in Iraq by 60% at the end of 2007:
<<< The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.
According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., 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.
Under the plan, the first reductions would involve two combat brigades that would rotate out of Iraq in September without being replaced. Military officials do not typically characterize reductions by total troop numbers, but rather by brigades. Combat brigades, which generally have about 3,500 troops, do not make up the bulk of the 127,000-member American force in Iraq, and other kinds of units would not be pulled out as quickly.
American officials emphasized that any withdrawals would depend on continued progress, including the development of competent Iraqi security forces, a reduction in Sunni Arab hostility toward the new Iraqi government and the assumption that the insurgency will not expand beyond Iraq's six central provinces. Even so, the projected troop withdrawals in 2007 are more significant than many experts had expected. >>>
This leak appears to come from a high-placed military source, as this kind of briefing would have a small number of attendees. That tends to make a mole hunt rather quick to conduct, and the Pentagon will undoubtedly start looking very quickly for the leaker -- unless they staged it themselves. The White House has faced a lot of pressure to show results in Iraq, and while it has come in a rush recently, the training of the Iraqi troops has mostly passed under the media radar. If we already have the reductions in process, the pressure from Congress to set deadlines will likely fade.
Otherwise, the news that Casey has planned for troop reductions should not surprise anyone. We knew from the Washington Post article by Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi national-security advisor, that these transitions had already started and would accelerate soon. Rubaie explained this on June 20th:
<<< Iraq has a total of 18 governorates, which are at differing stages in terms of security. Each will eventually take control of its own security situation, barring a major crisis. But before this happens, each governorate will have to meet stringent minimum requirements as a condition of being granted control. For example, the threat assessment of terrorist activities must be low or on a downward trend. Local police and the Iraqi army must be deemed capable of dealing with criminal gangs, armed groups and militias, and border control. There must be a clear and functioning command-and-control center overseen by the governor, with direct communication to the prime minister's situation room.
Despite the seemingly endless spiral of violence in Iraq today, such a plan is already in place. All the governors have been notified and briefed on the end objective. The current prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has approved the plan, as have the coalition forces, and assessments of each province have already been done. Nobody believes this is going to be an easy task, but there is Iraqi and coalition resolve to start taking the final steps to have a fully responsible Iraqi government accountable to its people for their governance and security. Thus far four of the 18 provinces are ready for the transfer of power -- two in the north (Irbil and Sulaymaniyah) and two in the south (Maysan and Muthanna). Nine more provinces are nearly ready. >>>
George Bush has made it clear that the troops required now to secure these provinces would return home when the Iraqis took command of security from us. Gordon's report just confirms what Rubaie has already told us: the Iraqis have made themselves ready to take charge. Casey's briefing on proposed troop reductions reflect the reality on the ground in these provinces. Even Gordon notes that the reductions come at the pace dictated by the situation on the ground and not to an artificial timetable.
The Times, then, has told us that General Casey has held a briefing detailing the numbers and rotation strategy of a process long expected and described on numerous occasions. The fact that the Pentagon held this briefing recently shows that Rubaie had his facts straight, and that the Pentagon considers the progress substantial enough to proceed with planning the reductions. Otherwise, this is nothing new nor surprising.
If the Pentagon felt that they needed to leak this information for political purposes, it just shows how corrosive the debate on the deployment in Iraq has become to the war effort. If not, then expect the DoD to get very serious about tracking down the leaker. In either case, the New York Times has once again specialized in publishing classified material on a story with only marginal news value.
ADDENDUM: I would caution my friends on the Right from getting too far ahead on comparisons between this story and the Lichtblau/Rosen series. No intel methods got blown in this story, and apart from the fect of the briefing itself, Michael Gordon's reporting does little but confirm the strategy that the White House and DoD have stated from the time Saddam Hussein got chased out of Baghdad. It doesn't even note specific dates or deadlines, apart from an educated guess that the provinces will turn over in time for the four-brigade drop by the end of this year, and the halving of the force by the end of next year. It looks like the kind of leak that serves to build confidence in the effort rather than undermine it.
UPDATE: Michelle was nice enough to link to me, and reminds us that the law regarding classified information does not distinguish between "controlled" and "uncontrolled" links. Make sure you check out her excellent collection of adapted WWII posters exhorting Americans to keep quiet about confidential information. These, unfortunately, are different times.
UPDATE II: Josh Marshall misses a couple of points in his analysis (via TMV):
<<< No leaving Iraq until 2009, the president says. But then the administration leaks word that the pull-out is in 2007. No plan -- just whatever sounds best at the moment.
Against a phased withdrawal before they were for it. >>>
First, the plan all along has been for a phased withdrawal; the difference is that the Democrats have insisted on tying that withdrawal to calendar dates, while the Bush administration has insisted on tying it to progress on the ground. Second, the plan as reported by the Times does not end the Iraq deployment in 2007. If Josh had read this more carefully, Casey proposed that only four or five brigades (out of 14 currently) would remain at the end of 2007. That's not a pull-out by anyone's definition. The final withdrawal would probably come from Anbar and Baghdad, and that could take another two years of close logistical support past the rest of the drawdown to achieve.
As I said, this article reports nothing new to those who have paid attention.
captainsquartersblog.com
nytimes.com
captainsquartersblog.com
michellemalkin.com
talkingpointsmemo.com |
