Surge/Escalation In Iraq

[Annie]

I hate to say this, I mean I really hate to say this. I've been reading all the stories from all sorts of political angles. Next week President Bush is going to address the nation about what will transpire in Iraq in the coming months. The title deals with the politics from the right/left memes.

If what I'm reading today is correct, that perhaps 8-12k more troops are going to be sent, he's wrong. I've no background in warfare, much less strategy or execution, but enough commonsense to recognize that 149k troops are not much different than 140k when all hell is breaking loose.

It seems to me they can either send 40-50k more, with the intention of 'forcing' peace or they can stay where they are, stopping the 'reconstruction' and working on 'forcing peace.'

 

[Annie]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTIyZTc0ZWUxYjBhNmFhNjhjYTdlOGJjNDY0Y2NhYTg=

SURGE CENTRAL [Kate O'Beirne]

I’m just back from the briefings at AEI on the new strategy in Iraq that would increase the number of troops in order to provide security in some key Baghdad neighborhoods and take on the insurgents in the al Anbar province. Frederick Kagan and General Jack Keane outlined Phase I of their AEI report, “Choosing Victory, A Plan for Success in Iraq.” The new strategy is designed to deal with the “bad and eroding” security situation in Iraq and is based on the premise that the required economic and political reforms simply can’t happen in the midst of the current violence. Kagan explained the present stage the U.S. finds itself in and the need for a fundamental change in mission: “in case of emergency — break glass and employ this.”

Gen. Keane emphasizes that the surge in troops represents a wholly new military mission — to protect Iraqis in Sunni and mixed Sunni-Shia neighborhoods, i.e. to defeat the insurgency. The current military mission is to transition to Iraqi forces. Kagan and Keane both emphasized that the surge has to be both substantial (minimum 30,000 troops) and sustained (minimum 18 months). They explained that it would be desirable to have even a larger surge but current resources don’t allow for that and they don’t support any timetable other than that dictated by mission success. Gen. Keane points out that it will take some time to win the cooperation of the local population. The troop surge should be accompanied by a reconstruction package.

Many of these details are in their report. Their presentation was candid and sober. Kagan: “it will take all of 2007 to get Baghdad under control and it will be a bloody year.” Kagan quickly noted that 2007 would be even bloodier if the U.S. was to begin withdrawing. Both experts agree that the active duty Army should be larger (me: and it’s a scandal that it’s not five years after 9/11). Gen Keane thinks the Army needs 60,000 additional soldiers and Kagan believes the number should be “significantly higher” than that in order to avoid the spot we now find ourselves in — “constrained from doing the right thing” owing to too few resources.
Posted at 4:10 PM

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I hate to say this, I mean I really hate to say this. I've been reading all the stories from all sorts of political angles. Next week President Bush is going to address the nation about what will transpire in Iraq in the coming months. The title deals with the politics from the right/left memes.

If what I'm reading today is correct, that perhaps 8-12k more troops are going to be sent, he's wrong. I've no background in warfare, much less strategy or execution, but enough commonsense to recognize that 149k troops are not much different than 140k when all hell is breaking loose.

It seems to me they can either send 40-50k more, with the intention of 'forcing' peace or they can stay where they are, stopping the 'reconstruction' and working on 'forcing peace.'

Here's an idea.

Since things have gotten worse since day one of the occupation, perhaps, lets, I dunno, STOP OCCUPYING Iraq.

 

[dilloduck]

Here's an idea.

Since things have gotten worse since day one of the occupation, perhaps, lets, I dunno, STOP OCCUPYING Iraq.

And maybe Iran would stop occupying it too !!!!

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[trobinett]

And maybe Iran would stop occupying it too !!!!

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

No?