Among the big headlines General David Petraeus’s testimony before Congress has produced is the news that 30,000 troops will be coming home before next summer. Characterized by the general as a “very substantial withdrawal,” it’s one of the only indications that he and the president are ultimately trying to wind down our presence in Iraq. It’s gotten big play, right alongside Petraeus’s insistence that the “surge” is working.
USA Today’s headline today is typical: “Bush to support troop pullback.” The lead describes the president as set to “endorse” the “proposal by the top U.S. military commander in Iraq to gradually withdraw up to 30,000 American troops by next summer.”
The headline and story in this and other papers makes it appear that this draw down is a choice. It’s easy to forget that, actually, it isn’t.
To it’s credit, the Los Angeles Times had a much more precise description that, in one paragraph, sticks a pin in Petraeus’s and Bush’s inflated statements:
The ‘very substantial withdrawal’ Petraeus outlined Monday would keep the buildup in place for as long as possible without extending the tours of soldiers beyond the current limit of 15 months: Taking into account those tour limits, which were increased to their current level earlier this year, those additional troops would have had to come home anyway by the end of August. In essence, Petraeus was arguing Monday for a continuation of the buildup until virtually no more Army and Marine units were available.
So the reality: this withdrawal was going to take place anyway because the military just couldn’t be stretched any further. The Los Angeles Times is not the only paper to remind us of this fact, but not enough news sources are being clear about this. And as the news of next year’s draw down passes from Petraeus’s mouth to Bush’s, it will be important to remind readers that what is being sold as a courageous choice is actually nothing more than the result of simple necessity.
Gal Beckerman is a former staff writer at CJR and a writer and editor for the New York Times Book Review.