Surge Reduction Sleight-of-Hand

I mentioned this morning how Bush's claim that bringing home 30,000 troops by next July should somehow count as a troop reduction was really nothing more than obfuscatory sleight-of-hand, and CNN's pugnacious Michael Ware (check out that dude's nose for goodness sake, can you say "amateur boxer?") tore the lid off the charade:

ANDERSON COOPER: Michael Ware, Petraeus said that as many as 30,000 troops could leave by the beginning of next summer. It was sort of presented as though that was an operational decision.


In truth, it is really an operational necessity. The U.S. can't maintain these current troop levels, without putting even more strain on the -- on our already strained troops. Is that correct?




MICHAEL WARE: Yes, that is correct, Anderson. In fact, I'm struck by the way people are regarding General Petraeus' discussion of -- of those troop levels until July of next year. People are acting like he has just announced some sort of phased withdrawal. Well, no, not at all. That was the timeline for the so-called surge in the beginning.


Indeed, it wasn't a surge. It was a one-year escalation of U.S. forces. And the clock was due to run out on that escalation in the summer of next year anyway. So, that is not a revelation at all.