Hmm...Throughout the last couple of days we've seen multiple diaries (see here and here) exclaiming that the Obama administration was going to stop the withdrawal timeline and so on, look at this article from today's WAPO, what does it say?
WAPO: US STICKING WITH DRAWDOWN
Okay, it was a little too easy to pick on those folks, my point is, there's a lesson in all of this. Writing diaries without full certainty (and with sources from British newspapers) and running with hair on fire evokes emotions on all sides. To avoid this, one requires a complex view of the situation.
Here's what the article says:
Approaching what it calls the end of its combat mission in Iraq, the U.S. military will maintain substantial firepower here for the near future. But it will have to adjust to waning resources, influence, mobility and money like never before. And it will be drawing down amid a political standoff in the wake of the March 7 parliamentary elections that has no end in sight.
American commanders are watching the sluggish government formation process closely and warily. The risks are high, with U.S. and Iraqi military commanders expressing fears ranging from a possible resurgence of Shiite militias to the splintering of security forces along sectarian lines.
But the Obama administration has so far stuck to its timeline that calls for a drawdown to 50,000 troops -- roughly half the current total -- by Sept. 1, and the complete pullout of U.S. forces by the end of 2011. It has also disappointed some Iraqis who would like to see Washington play a more assertive role in brokering the political impasse.
Well now, could we stop being quick to condemn and be willing to listen to both sides of an issue. That's all I'm asking, would that be so genuinely hard? It's clear that the drawdown is still occuring and the WH is sticking to its guns.