September Surprise. Observers of U.S. politics are familiar with the term "October Surprise", which Wikipedia describes as:

a stunning news event with the potential to influence the outcome of an election, particularly one for the presidency. It is so called because Election Day in the U.S. is the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and events shortly before the election have greater potential to swing votes.

In the American election system of fixed terms, we always know when our next election will be. Generally, our major elections are held in November. Unfortunately, some stupid localities hold their elections earlier. We just had a mayor and council election in Newark in May, and a runoff for council earlier this month (June, for those of you, in the future, reading past posts).
+
American elections should never be held at unexpected times but always in November. It's hard enuf to get people to the polls when they expect an election. It's almost impossible when they don't know about one. A week before our councilmanic runoff, we had a primary election for U.S. Senate that I didn't hear about until the very day it was held. I had received no materials from anyone except a sample ballot that I didn't even look at until after that primary passed, because I assumed it related to the councilmanic runoff, and it wasn't timely to look at that ballot until a day or two before that date. So I, a very political person, knew nothing about an election and didn't vote! I had no reason to vote anyway, because I am content to have Menendez run for re-election, and I think he was unopposed in the Democratic Party. We have open primaries in New Jersey, a seriously stupid practice that should be abolished. But, then, primaries should be abolished. They were intended to democratize the ballot but have had exactly the opposite effect.
+
All that to the side, General George Casey, the Pentagon's top man on the war in Iraq, announced "recently" (the story appeared in The New York Times and on the broadcast networks today (Sunday), but the Toronto Globe and Mail story I read referred to his announcement being made earlier) that the U.S. might withdraw 7,000 troops in September:

there were revelations in Washington that the top U.S. commander in Iraq has drafted a plan for a significant reduction in its forces by the end of next year.

The first cuts are projected for September.

General George Casey gave a classified briefing at the Pentagon recently in which he outlined the reduction to five or six combat brigades by December of 2007 from the current 14, The New York Times reported. Brigades are generally comprised of about 3,500 troops.

While they do not make up the bulk of the 127,000-member U.S. military force in Iraq -- a reduction of up to nine brigades would shrink that number by about 30,000 -- the Times report highlights the political sensitivity in Washington over setting any kind of timeline for a pullout.

(This is unusually bad reporting as regards numbers. 14 combat brigades times 3,500 = 49,000. But we have 127,000 troops in Iraq? What are the others, typists? I don't want to be too hard on The Globe and Mail — and pass over the semi-illiterate usage "comprised of" (which should be "composed of"). The Globe and Mail did a major story about me many years ago and even ran a political cartoon of me in August 1977. But if "combat brigades" "do not make up the bulk of the 127,000-member U.S. military force in Iraq", what does?)
+
Congress just this past week went thru the exercise of voting on two measures to require a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops, and the Republicans (who put up these straw men only to vote them down) rallied to defeat any such mandate. Now the Administration's own general is talking timetable, and the withdrawals he proposes would start shortly before the November election. What a coinkydink! — or, as they might say in parts of Canada, Quel surprise! (de septembre).
+
Republicans really are slime. With one hand they pretend to be above public calls to end this war as soon as possible, because it would "send the wrong message" to insurgents and 'terrorists'. With the other, they announce an intent to start withdrawing troops only a few weeks before the November mid-term elections.
+
Last week, announcing a timetable for withdrawal "would send the wrong message". Earlier today, announcing a timetable for withdrawal sends no message. In September, actual withdrawals will send the right message. That message, of course is, "Re-elect Republicans."
+
Republicans plainly believe that they can have their cake and eat it too: pose as prepared to stay as long as it takes, not "cut and run", and start to withdraw (cut and run) shortly before the elections so they can fool the voters into thinking the Republicans have won the war and can now safely withdraw. Of course, if a few weeks later, safely after the elections have returned Republicans to control of both houses of Congress, things in Iraq turn bad again and "the generals" (meaning the Republican leadership) decides that the withdrawal was premature and we need to go back in with even more troops because insurgents have moved to fill a vacuum, and we now need to retake lost ground, they can replace the 7,000 troops withdrawn with 30,000 fresh troops sent in, and it will be too late for the electorate to do a thing about it.
+
Since the decisions will (supposedly) have been made by "the generals", not "the politicians", the Republican leadership will be able to disown all responsibility for this electoral scam. And if they are sufficiently lucky, they will indeed fool the morons who are the bulk of their support. "Only in America."
+
But what if the insurgents have an October Surprise to trump the Republicans' September Surprise, a mass offensive that inflicts devastating losses on U.S. forces, blows up hotels and embassies in the Green Zone, and otherwise proves that the U.S. is nowhere near winning this Republican war? Oh, they wouldn't think of that. They are too stupid in general and ignorant of U.S. politics in particular to know about October Surprises. Or are they?
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 2,519.)
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 11:42 PM