Smoke and mirrors

No one wants to see US troops return home more than me, especially with my dear friend Suzanne being sent to Iraq. However, I am fearful that many will misconstrue President Bush's recent "historic announcement" of recalling troops back to the United States as long overdue relief for the soldiers stationed in Iraq....
...It's not.
Below are portions (edited for brevity) from a Washington Post article released yesterday illustrating in better detail what I'm talking about. Feel free to disagree, agree, forward on to your friends and what not. Now is the time to be more aware of what is going on, not less. I hope everyone is having a great summer. Be well.
---Dan

President Outlines Overseas Troop Cut
Tue Aug 17, 7:27 AM ET

By Mike Allen and Josh White, Washington Post Staff Writers

CINCINNATI, Aug. 16 -- President Bush announced plans Monday to recall as many as 70,000 troops from Cold War-era bases in Europe and Asia as part of a global rearrangement of forces that is aimed at making the military more agile in an age of unpredictable enemies.

The plan could significantly change the face of the U.S. military at home and abroad, in what administration officials called the largest restructuring overseas since the end of the Korean War.
The repositioning is to unfold gradually over seven to 10 years and cut by one-third the 230,000 U.S. service members now stationed overseas. The largest reductions would occur in Germany, which would lose two Army divisions, and South Korea. The two countries account for more than half of the U.S. troops stationed permanently on foreign soil.

Bush's announcement of the plan -- which drew mixed assessments from military analysts -- gave him a chance to talk about bringing troops home at a time when his opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), has pledged to substantially reduce U.S. troop levels in Iraq. The administration plan, which will not affect the number of troops in Iraq, has been under development for many months. Its main outlines were reported publicly last week.

Kerry, who was vacationing in Idaho, did not immediately respond to Bush, but several of his allies attacked the plan vigorously. The Democratic National Committee organized a conference call with retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, NATO's former supreme allied commander, who said the plan "will significantly undermine U.S. national security."

"As we face a global war on terror with al Qaeda active in more than 60 countries, now is not the time to pull back our forces," Clark said.

Richard C. Holbrooke, a former assistant secretary of state and ambassador to the United Nations under President Bill Clinton, accused Bush of trying to deflect attention from the strain on the military by prolonged deployments in Iraq. He criticized Bush for slipping a "historic announcement" into essentially a campaign speech.

"It's not good diplomacy," said Holbrooke, who argued that the plan will undermine relations with allies. "It sends the message that this administration continues to operate in a unilateral manner without adequately consulting its closest allies. It's a mistake, driven by the fact that we're stretched too thin in Iraq and the presidential election."

The plan prompted debate among military and government analysts over the potential costs and benefits of what was a relatively vague though dramatic announcement.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Daniel Christman said U.S. forces would lose the intangible advantages of living and working in allied countries, and he said the moves could send the wrong messages to adversaries. The shift would pull some U.S. ground troops from the Korean Peninsula, a hot spot where the United States has been working to deter North Korea's nuclear capabilities.

"I couldn't imagine a worse time to be pulling troops out of Korea at the same time we're trying to get Pyongyang to give up its nukes," Christman said. "It seems like preemptive concession."

Defense officials declined to talk about costs or specific redeployment figures, saying they are still working on details with several countries. The plan figures to be quite costly, as U.S. bases would have to be refurbished or expanded to handle the influx of troops and their families.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in a report in May that greatly reducing the U.S. presence overseas could save more than $1 billion a year but could cost nearly $7 billion upfront.

"Restationing Army forces would produce, at best, only small improvements in the United States' ability to respond to far-flung conflicts," the CBO said.

John P. White, a lecturer in public policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and a former deputy secretary of defense, said he believes such money should only be spent with an "imperative need" to do so. "I don't understand how we gain strategic ability to respond by moving people to the U.S., further away from the likely trouble spots," he said. "I don't get it."

The major moves are not likely to begin until at least fiscal 2006 or later, with a bulk of those returning to the United States coming over several years.

The overture by Bush to military families in a national security speech reflected the political stakes and timing of the speech. This is the second week of an effort by Bush and his campaign to undo any success Kerry had in using the Democratic National Convention to portray himself as worthy of the title commander in chief. Veterans and military families, traditionally a Republican constituency, are thought to be in play this year because of Kerry's credentials in Vietnam and concern over unexpectedly long deployments and continuing casualties in Iraq.

The appearance was paid for by Bush's reelection campaign, and he laced his remarks with digs at Kerry. He entered to "Hail to the Chief" and received standing ovations before, during and after his speech.

Continuing the two campaigns' mirrored schedules, Kerry is to address the VFW on Wednesday.

White reported from Washington.