President Bush... bringing the troops home! Not the ones in danger, of course...

So the media is trumpeting this announcement by the President in Cincinnati today to realign combat forces in Europe and Asia, bringing up to 70,000 troops home over the next 10 years.  Now, the Cold War has been over for almost 15 years, so I don't think many people will object to getting troop reductions in Germany and Japan (although taking troops out of Korea at a time when relations with the North are so tense seems ludicrous).  
Diaries ::
But where are these troops headed once they rotate out of their prior commitments?  The Bush Administration insists they'd head home, but this is the same administration that just deployed members of the IRR (Individual Ready Reserve), retired soldiers that had extra years available to military service.  This "troop reduction" may just transfer troops from safe bases into Iraq and Afghanistan.  It seems more like a safeguard against mandatory conscription, which lots of experts agree is a looming reality.

Of course, we're in an election year, and any opportunity to win votes by saying "I'm bringing the troops home" is a good idea for a candidate.  Responding to John Kerry's claim that with help from allies, we could significantly reduce US troop levels in Iraq by the end of 2005, Bush said, "That sends the wrong signal to the enemy."  So he's clearly not taking one soldier out of Iraq, and there are virtually no soldiers in reserve once the disgruntled National Guard members in Iraq and other Army regulars end their service there and rotate back to the US.

This is a cynical ploy by a desperate incumbent who can say "we're bringing troops home" while in fact putting targets on their chests and sending them back out into a firing zone.