Tactics, Strategy, Politics.

Via Atrios, a reader actually got The Washington Post's Shailagh Murray to offer a definition of "precipitous withdrawal," perhaps the Beltway's most pernicious meaningless term. She came up with:

Precipitous in this case would be more quickly than military leaders believe is sensible, based on their mission and the situation on the ground. Believe it or not, a lot of Democrats are concerned about withdrawing too many troops too quickly. You can be against the war, but also against mucking it up.

Obviously, though, "military leaders" disagree. The Joint Chiefs didn't like the surge plan when Bush floated it. And this big multi-byline Washington Post feature on the surge leads with General Petraeus fighting with Admiral Fallon, his commanding officer, over surge-related issues. Part of the Petraeus/Fallon debate involved the CENTCOM CINC wanting more troops to be available for contingencies outside of Iraq. Part of the Joint Chiefs' objection to the surge was its massively deleterious impact on long-term military preparedness.

Which is to say that military leaders disagree in part because people are just bound to disagree. But they disagree in part because they have different perspectives and different priorities. Ultimately, it's the job of political leaders -- of the president and the congress -- to make these kind of decisions about priorities. It's up to them to set national policy, to decide where the nation's interests lie, and to ultimately decide what to do. Politicians should, obviously, listen to what officers have to say, but the fact that some particular commander wants to have more resources dedicated to his particular mission doesn't have a great deal of probative value.

Comments

Bush and the Republican Party would dearly love to defy conventional wisdom and retake Congress and hold the Presidency in 2008. However, many in the party have likely privately conceded prospects are bleak. Bush himself may feel the same way despite his renown for optimism in the face of long odds (see '06 elections). Isn't it painfully obvious to everyone Bush must somehow extend his current war strategy until passing off this mess to the next (Democratic) President? It would be such a Rovian tactic to hope to pin inevitable failure and withdrawal on Clinton or Obama that it has to be conceded that's the plan. Does Bush really give a damn what happens over there so long as a Democrat is fingered as having lost a war given them with "victory in sight". Petraeus and Co. must convince the electorate that victory is achievable. All the forces of The Right must spend the next 16 months enforcing the idea Bush and the military are mere weeks or months away from a critical breakthrough. After the next inauguration concerted efforts will start, assigning guilt to that President for cowardly and cravenly retreating just as Iraqis and our military had their goals at hand, their hopes nearly realized. I don't see this war as anything but a losing proposition for the next administration. Republicans are already mapping out their 2010 midterm election strategy. Democrats being in league with the dreaded Islamofascists play a prominent part in their plans.

Posted by steve duncan | September 10, 2007 8:24 AM

You can be against the war, but also against mucking it up.

Jesus fucking Christ. That's been my position since mid-2002, and what the hell do I have to show for it? A giant clusterfucking muck-up, that's what.

Posted by Jackmormon | September 10, 2007 8:48 AM

In defense of that definition, "sensible" does not likely mean "ideal" or even "advocated" there. It could mean something like "would not put the troops in too much danger during the pull out or require us to simply abandon our equipment to the insurgents."

Of course that being said, the definition returns to being somewhat vacuous since it can be filled in by whatever one thinks is required by a "sensible" withdrawal.

Posted by Lon | September 10, 2007 9:09 AM

Given the impeccable logic for which journalists of the WaPo are well known, I can only conclude that she thinks that those who are for the war are justified in being in support of mucking it up.

Posted by gregor | September 10, 2007 9:19 AM

Sounds like a precipitous withdrawal is being defined as any withdrawal that takes place before George Bush decides the mission is complete.

Posted by Steve | September 10, 2007 9:46 AM

i wish someone had asked murray what the "mission" is? one would really, after all this time, like to know.

it's a hallmark of very serious personhood, of course, to drape your remarks in undefined references to the "mission" and murray is, of course, a very serious person be definition.

Posted by howard | September 10, 2007 10:43 AM

To echo Steve, maybe someone can ask Murray whether "precipitous withdrawal" is simply a redundant term, or is there in fact some sort of withdrawal that would not be precipitous.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | September 10, 2007 10:44 AM

After reading and commenting on this, I happened on an op-ed by Lawrence Korb and Max Bergmann in yesterday's Boston Globe that gives what seems to be a serious analysis of what a precipitous withdrawal would actually be. (I am not in any position to know if they are right, but they do what such a discussion should. They start on the assumption that we should be pulling out, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages to different time-frames).

It is at http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/09/how_to_withdraw_quickly_and_safely/

So while Shailagh Murray doesn't seem serious on this topic, there is an actual debate worth having here based on consequences of choices.

Posted by Lon | September 10, 2007 12:08 PM

Ultimately the issue regarding continuing our presence in Iraq should be about our global strategy as a nation, not about the tactics of our military.

The Bush error from the very beginning has been relying on military tactics to develop into a coherent strategy. The system doesn't work that way, and the continual deference to tacticians when what is needed is coherent strategic goals and benchmarks is a great way to guarantee the kind of failure that we've been witnessing for the past four-and-a-half years.

Before agreeing to give the military six more months, or sixty more years, our nation's leaders need to get clear about our strategy in the region. "Freedom" is a slogan, not a strategy.

In fact, in re-reading all the arguments about how toppling Saddam and "sowing democracy" will lead to a blossoming of freedom and peace in the Middle East one is struck by the lack of strategy, and the plethora of faith being put in an ahistoric theory of human behavior.

Posted by cpl | September 10, 2007 12:55 PM

I don't think she could name one person who has ever advocated withdrawing "more quickly than military leaders believe is sensible" (however quick that is, since the answer to this question from "military leaders" varies wildly) without having to troll around the comments sections of anti-war blogs first.

Except, at least, for the Iraqis, who only started supporting a precipitous withdrawal not long after it became all the buzz in Washington. Rumsfeld first used the phrase in late 2005. 10 months later:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html

Posted by buermann | September 10, 2007 2:13 PM

I don't think Lawrence Korb and Max Bergmann are being serious if they're including how long it will take to sterilize and shrinkwrap the kitchen sink in their calculations. The expectation that we would have to "fight our way out" seems misplaced: the people fighting us want us to leave, negotiating an effective ceasefire to facilitate our timely exit with said parties shouldn't be particularly difficult.

Posted by buermann | September 10, 2007 2:24 PM

Actually what Korb and Bergmann were saying is that the military guidelines for withdrawal call for sterilizing and shrinkwraping the kitchen sink, but they are arguing that is why using the military guidelines is silly. So you are not disagreeing with them on this point.

As for the people fighting us wanting us to leave, some do and some don't. The al qaeda types most likely want us to stay so that they can keep killing some of our people. And obviously they would see a retreat as an ideal time to get in some final kills.

But again you are not disagreeing with the Korb/Bergmann analysis, since they also don't see the threat to departing soldiers as a major issue. Their concern is more with the weapons and serious equipment that would fall into hostile hands.

Again, they may be wrong. But, buerman, your critiques here actually seem more to support their analysis than undercut it.

Posted by Lon | September 10, 2007 4:04 PM