Media misreads President again on Iraq

Washington Post:

Despite political pressure for a change of course in Iraq, the White House hopes to keep in place its existing military strategy and troop levels there after the mid-September report from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, administration officials said.

Even as the administration faced a new call this week from Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), a leading ally, to begin at least a symbolic withdrawal of troops by Christmas, White House officials said privately that they are not contemplating making major shifts before early next year. They said that next month's report is likely to highlight what they see as significant improvements in security over the past year and that they expect the president to assert that now is not the time to dramatically change approaches.

One senior White House official expressed the prevailing mood, saying he does not expect a "wholesale change in plans" next month.

But White House officials said they do expect Petraeus and Bush to begin outlining what a "post-surge" strategy might look like. They said the key date is April 2008, when the military will have to begin bringing units home unless it is willing to extend troop rotations from 15 to 18 months.

Another senior official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss White House thinking more freely, said he expects the U.S. presence to return to pre-buildup levels of 15 combat brigades and about 130,000 troops a year from now, down from about 160,000. "We all know where we want to get to," this official said. "We all know that there will be a long-term robust troop presence that will outlast this president."

All the officials cautioned that the situation is fluid. Many fully expect the insurgents to attempt a spectacular attack in the next several weeks, and several said they have not heard even privately from Petraeus about the contents of his report. They said they expect Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, to give the White House some preliminary idea of his thinking next week.

...

They should add that any of the "spectacular attacks" will be designed as media events to give Democrats talking points for retreat. Al Qaeda's reduced capacity makes anything more meaningful impossible. The same goes for the remnants of the Sadr Army militia whose leader Mookie is hiding in Iran. The enemy is in retreat and can occasionally muster an attack on non combatants. This past week it did have a battle with Sunnis who have changed sides in Diyala, but that is nothing for al Qaeda to brag ab out.

The NY Times writes the story as though there is a difference of opinion between the generals in Iraq and the ones in the Pentagon. I think its more a difference between desire and need. The guys in Iraq think they need the troops and the ones in Washington would like to bring some home and give them a break. The Times story does have an interesting photo with it.