It occurs to me that if I knew I had a powerful leech that fed on everything I did, and that leech typically used underhand means with impunity, I would at some point begin taking the leech into account and consider using its methods to accomplish my strategic goals, such as making the enemy think I had blinked. Let the leech have a little blood, give it a certain "memo." Get a preview of what the enemy has to put on the line if it thinks you're pulling out soon.

But nah, Hillary is right, we've got Alfred E. Newman running the show. Can't be any strategery going on here.

It may not even be a "contingency plan," in the literal sense of the word. The plan is to put Iraq in a position to wax the bad guys itself. If that plan succeeds, we will begin to draw down our forces. There is nothing wrong with that. If we did not have such a plan, I would be very worried.

That is entirely different, of course, from declaring a date on which we will withdraw come hell or high water, which is what the left wants to do.

As Kevin Drum points out isn't odd that the memo reveals a difference of opinion between "officials in Washington" and military leaders on the ground:

"....The memo notes a debate between U.S. officials at the Pentagon and military leaders in Iraq, saying that officials in Washington favor "a relatively bold reduction in force numbers," differing with battlefield commanders, "whose approach is more cautious." There are more than 135,000 U.S. troops currently in Iraq."

I thought Bush always listened to the commanders on the ground. If that were so why the disagreement? Also, isn't it odd that those very same Washington officials are suggesting that significant troop reductions will be possible just before the 2006 mid-term elections:

"The paper, which is marked "Secret — UK Eyes Only," said "emerging US plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006,"

Is it irresponsible of the press to expose when and how our government is playing politics with the lives of American troops?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_07/006690.php

tee bee's no fool. This may be a tip drill (football fans). Suggest a pullout and see what happens. If the bad guys stand down a bit and you have intel you may eliminate threats during the lull & interdict more later (or lure out some whose goals require constant conflict thus they must escalate now). The old switcheroo is still available. Like attacking the center while advancing a pawn to promotion on the wing. Also reates a cave to lure home moonbats to their doom.

Tee Bee and Pull My Finger: I like your thoughts :)

And in line with Rob's main point of press irresponsibility, which is of course still true, even if it was a planted leak, I hope it further backfires on the press in this way:

If the enemy holds back, waiting for the pullout date before renewed attack, then during the lull there will be fewer events in Iraq for the press to use as daily examples of "how bad things are over there." Fewer deaths of coalition soldiers, contractors, diplomats and Iraqi citizens. And during the lull, Pull My Finger's above-described game plan gets carried out.

Then daily briefings to the press on all the good news, take them on bus tours to all the new waterworks, sewage plants, new schools, new hospitals, etc. Ha, that's one way to get rid of malevolent journalists! Putting good news in front of their faces is like showing a cross to a vampire.

I hope not...