Even "cutting and running" is OK if you're a Republican

For the last week, Congressional Republicans and spokesbots from the Bush Administration have been blasting Democrats for calling for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq:

"This amendment effectively calls on the United States to cut and run from Iraq. Let me be clear: retreat is not a solution. Our national security requires us to follow through on our commitments. Artificial deadlines are not the solution — and those calling for an early withdrawal of American troops from Iraq utterly fail to understand the potentially catastrophic implications of their proposal. Cutting and running is bad policy that threatens our national security and poses unacceptable risks to Americans." -- Sen. Bill Frist, 6/19/06

An amendment to a military spending bill, drafted by Sens. Carl Levin and Jack Reed, called for the U.S. to BEGIN redeploying U.S. troops by year end -- not complete a withdrawal, but begin a redeployment.

Sen. John Warner called it a timetable. Sen John ("Lapdog") McCain called it "a significant step on the road to disaster." Sen. John Cornyn said it "simply looks a lot like giving up."

This last week made it clear that Republicans are so afraid of looking impotent that they will continue this course that is leading nowhere indefinitely -- sending more and more American kids to die -- rather than lose face.

This is reprehensible.

In the week to come, watch the rhetoric from the Republican side very carefully, because now the top U.S. 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

Perhaps in the Land of Delusions in which this president and his supporters reside, this is not a "phased withdrawal." But fron where I'm sitting, that's exactly what it is. Are the Senate Republicans going to call Gen. Gen. George W. Casey Jr. a coward?

More:

The commander met this week with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On Friday, General Casey and Mr. Rumsfeld met with President Bush at the White House. A senior White House official said that General Casey did not present a formal plan for Mr. Bush's approval but rather a concept of how the United States might move forward after consulting with Iraqi authorities, including Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

Well, Prime Minister Nuri Kama al-Maliki has issued his own plan, to be announced today, calling for:

A timetable for withdrawal of occupation troops from Iraq. Amnesty for all insurgents who attacked U.S. and Iraqi military targets. Release of all security detainees from U.S. and Iraqi prisons. Compensation for victims of coalition military operations.

The Iraqi Prime Minister wants us out in a phased withdrawal. The general in charge wants to get us out in a phased withdrawal. Are they all cowards?

Gen. Casey's plan is as follows:

In the general's briefing, the future American role in Iraq is divided into three phases. The next 12 months was described as a period of stabilization. The period from the summer of 2007 through the summer of 2008 was described as a time when the emphasis would be on the restoration of the Iraqi government's authority. The period from the summer of 2008 though the summer of 2009 was cast as one in which the Iraqi government would be increasingly self-reliant.

In line with this vision, some cuts would begin soon. The United States has 14 combat brigades in Iraq, plus many other support troops. Under the plan, the Unites States would shrink this force to 12 combat brigades by September. This would be done by not replacing two brigades that are scheduled to be withdrawn: the First Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division and the Third Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division.

A combat brigade would be kept on alert in Kuwait or elsewhere in case American commanders needed to augment their forces to deal with a crisis. Another brigade would be kept on a lesser state of alert elsewhere in the world, but still prepared to deploy quickly. As a result of these arrangements, the plan to bring the combat force down to 12 active brigades in Iraq is being called 12-1-1.

Still further reductions might be made by the end of the year. By December, the number of American combat brigades in Iraq would be 10 to 12. As with the September reduction, a brigade would be kept on alert and another brigade would be ready to deploy.

According to the projections in General Casey's briefing, the number of combat brigades would shrink to seven to eight brigades by June 2007 and finally to five to six brigades by December 2007.

At the same time the number of bases in Iraq would decline as American forces consolidated. By the end of the year the number of bases would shrink to 57 from the current 69. By June 2007, there would be 30 bases, and by December 2007 there would be only 11. By the end of 2007, the United States would have three principal regional military commands: in Baghdad and the surrounding area, in Anbar Province and the west and in northern Iraq.

If Senate Republicans were smart, and if they hadn't shot off their mouths on this last week from the safety of their little hidey-hole on Capitol Hill, they'd jump at this plan. It calls for the first redeployments to start just in time for the fall election campaign, thus allowing Republicans to save face a bit on Iraq. They could say it came from a respected military man who knows the situation on the ground. They could use their Mighty Wurlitzer to repeat the mantra "This isn't cutting and running."

But will they do this? Or are they now stuck with "stay the course"? So watch the White House and the Senate very carefully this week. Watch what comes out of the very same mouths that were repeating the "cut and run" mantra last week. This is going to be interesting.

John Aravosis has some notes on this as well:

1. Bush just adopted the Democrats' plan. A plan he and Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman and the Republican Congress savaged all week.

2. To use Bush's own language, he just provided "the enemy" with DETAILED dates for the withdrawal and the exact number of troops we would withdraw and where they remaining troops would be stationed.

3. What changed in Iraq for the better in the past two days that let the White House come up with a timetable for a partial withdrawal? Was it the kidnapping of 85 to 100 people north of Baghdad? Was it the US embassy memo saying the situation is deteriorating? There are no facts whatsoever to suggest that the situation in Iraq has improved at all, so what possibly can Bush be basing this on other than political pandering for the upcoming US elections?

4. Isn't it nice to know that the US military is now actively trying to influence US elections?

5. Check out the small mention the NYT gives the hypocrisy of the GOP:

Now, after criticizing Democratic lawmakers for trying to legislate a timeline for withdrawing troops, skeptics say, the Bush administration seems to have its own private schedule, albeit one that can be adjusted as events unfold.

Skeptics? Would the Times report that "skeptics say humans breathe oxygen?" Do facts not exist any longer in American media circles? The Republicans spent all week savaging the Dems for talking about beginning a withdrawal. Does the Murtha plan sound vaguely familiar to anyone over at the Times? And now that Bush has a plan for a partial withdrawal, suddenly only "skeptics" are the ones seeing some rather large hypocrisy here. The GOP about-face should be THE story, not a few lines in the story. Not to mention, where is the quote in the story about the administration being asked about the hypocrisy? There's nothing - it would seem the Times didn't bother asking.

This about-face presents a problem for the media as well, because this withdrawal plan is so similar to the various plans put forth by Democrats over the last six months it might as well be drawn from them. But the very same plan which has been characterized as "cut and run" when it came from Democratic hands now has to be categorized as "brave and pragmatic" coming from the Bush Administration.

UPDATE: Billmon has more on the reframing of withdrawal, including the best quote of the day so far:

The next step, of course, will be for the same people who three days ago were demanding the execution of John Kerry and John Murtha for even daring to suggest a withdrawal timetable to immediately begin calling for a withdrawal timetable -- that is, when they're not hailing the Cheney administration for having won a smashing victory in Iraq. In fact it's already started.