What A Surge Really Means

[jillian]

IAVA Blog
January 5, 2007
Time Magazine: What a Surge Really Means
Filed under: Troop Levels, White House — IAVA Staff @ 12:50 pm

Can a couple more divisions in Iraq make a difference? Or is Bush’s idea too little, too late?

By MICHAEL DUFFY

Posted Thursday, Jan. 4, 2007
For years now, George W. Bush has told Americans that he would increase the number of troops in Iraq only if the commanders on the ground asked him to do so. It was not a throwaway line: Bush said it from the very first days of the war, when he and Pentagon boss Donald Rumsfeld were criticized for going to war with too few troops. He said it right up until last summer, stressing at a news conference in Chicago that Iraq commander General George Casey “will make the decisions as to how many troops we have there.” Seasoned military people suspected that the line was a dodge–that the civilians who ran the Pentagon were testing their personal theory that war can be fought on the cheap and the brass simply knew better than to ask for more. In any case, the President repeated the mantra to dismiss any suggestion that the war was going badly. Who, after all, knew better than the generals on the ground?

*More*

http://www.iava.org/blog/?p=11408

 

[Annie]

IAVA Blog
January 5, 2007
Time Magazine: What a Surge Really Means
Filed under: Troop Levels, White House — IAVA Staff @ 12:50 pm

Can a couple more divisions in Iraq make a difference? Or is Bush’s idea too little, too late?

By MICHAEL DUFFY

Posted Thursday, Jan. 4, 2007
For years now, George W. Bush has told Americans that he would increase the number of troops in Iraq only if the commanders on the ground asked him to do so. It was not a throwaway line: Bush said it from the very first days of the war, when he and Pentagon boss Donald Rumsfeld were criticized for going to war with too few troops. He said it right up until last summer, stressing at a news conference in Chicago that Iraq commander General George Casey “will make the decisions as to how many troops we have there.” Seasoned military people suspected that the line was a dodge–that the civilians who ran the Pentagon were testing their personal theory that war can be fought on the cheap and the brass simply knew better than to ask for more. In any case, the President repeated the mantra to dismiss any suggestion that the war was going badly. Who, after all, knew better than the generals on the ground?

*More*

http://www.iava.org/blog/?p=11408

I agree that if they are going to add troops to gain control it needs to be 30k or more. As for the generals on the ground, I think that is why the changes are being made.

 

[mattskramer]

Throwing more soldiers into Iraq, without including a change in strategy, will accomplish nothing but have more people killed (on each side). It is like merely tossing more lettuce into a salad. It results in merely more roughage.

 

[jillian]

I agree that if they are going to add troops to gain control it needs to be 30k or more. As for the generals on the ground, I think that is why the changes are being made.

That's a fanstasy, Kathianne. The generals begged for troops at the beginning. Now they seem to say, with exceptions of course, that it's pointless. Read the whole article.

 

[Annie]

That's a fanstasy, Kathianne. The generals begged for troops at the beginning. Now they seem to say, with exceptions of course, that it's pointless. Read the whole article.

I will keep reading, though I nearly stopped at this. Even the democrats knew that those suggestions were foolish:

...Coming from Bush, a man known for bold strokes, the surge is a strange half-measure--too large for the political climate at home, too small to crush the insurgency in Iraq and surely three years too late. Bush has waved off a bipartisan rescue mission out of pride, stubbornness or ideology, or some combination of the three. Rather than reversing course, as all the wise elders of the Iraq Study Group advised, the Commander in Chief is betting that more troops will lead the way to what one White House official calls "victory."...

 

[jillian]

I will keep reading, though I nearly stopped at this. Even the democrats knew that those suggestions were foolish:

It doesn't seem we're reading the same thing.

 

[dilloduck]

Throwing more soldiers into Iraq, without including a change in strategy, will accomplish nothing but have more people killed (on each side). It is like merely tossing more lettuce into a salad. It results in merely more roughage.

Why are you assuming that there will no change in strategy ?

 

[Annie]

It doesn't seem we're reading the same thing.

Time magazine article? I used your link?

 

[jillian]

Time magazine article? I used your link?

It was time magazine by way of Iraq/Afghanistan Veterans (optruth), but it seems you're missing what the article is saying because your response doesn't seem to be in line with what you quoted. Might be I'm missing something... just saying.

Anyway, off and running for a bit. Happy Sunday.

 

[mattskramer]

Why are you assuming that there will no change in strategy ?

Okay. I don’t know of any change in strategy. Perhaps there will be a secret change in strategy. If we are going to toss more soldiers into Iraq, I simply hope that there will be a change in strategy. I doubt that there will be a change in strategy but I might be mistaken.

 

[Annie]

Okay. I don’t know of any change in strategy. Perhaps there will be a secret change in strategy. If we are going to toss more soldiers into Iraq, I simply hope that there will be a change in strategy. I doubt that there will be a change in strategy but I might be mistaken.

You might start here, links at site:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDlkOGVkNWZmM2Q0YzZhZjg1YWJkZjE3NWRlZDQ0YjE=

Sunday, January 07, 2007

Surge Report [Stanley Kurtz]
There is something awfully odd about today’s big Washington Post story on the proposed troop surge. The headline reads, “Critics Say ‘Surge’ Is More of The Same,” and the article hammers that point home: “A sense that the White House is preparing more of the same is generating deep skepticism among Democrats in Congress.” The problem is that the article fails to report on the genuine tactical changes being proposed by the chief advocates of the surge.

True, the Post reports (in passing and with minimal emphasis) that, “The main difference under the new plan is that additional troops would be concentrated in the Baghdad vicinity...and the increase could last longer [than past increases]....” But this only begins to get at the point. The tactical keystone of the surge, as proposed by its main advocates, Frederick W. Kagan, General Jack Keane (U.S. Army ret.), and Senators McCain and Lieberman, is that American troops will not simply clear certain critical neighborhoods in Baghdad, but will also remain to hold them. That is, American soldiers will remain in Baghdad’s neighborhoods, rather than returning base, as they’ve done in the past. This is a major tactical shift–a conscious break from the practices favored by the generals now being replaced–and Kagan and Keane have stressed the significance of this change repeatedly. (For details, see “Iraq: A Turning Point. ”)

Perhaps the president’s plan will not finally adopt the tactics recommended by Kagan and Keane (and seemingly endorsed by McCain and Lieberman). Yet it seems to me that a fair news story ought to at least report that the chief public advocates of the surge are indeed offering substantially new tactics. The Post does report that the novelty of the surge is that it would be concentrated in Baghdad, and that it would last longer than previous surges. But the new plan to keep American soldiers in critical neighborhoods rather than sending them back to base, is what makes sense of the whole proposal, and confirms its novelty. Without reporting on this aspect of the proposal, the Post reinforces the arguments of the surge’s critics, without giving a fair shot to its advocates. In fact, the whole article, from the headline to the chart, is an effort to back up Democratic critics, without even conveying the key argument of proponents of the surge.

I’m not saying the surge is bound to work. On the contrary, I can see plenty of ways in which a surge might fail. But the Kagan-Keane plan has at least a prospect of success, and that’s more than we can say for the battle plan we’ve been relying on up to now. In any case, a fair news story on this issue would not look like the story in the Post today.
Posted at 11:32 AM

 

[mattskramer]

You might start here, links at site:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDlkOGVkNWZmM2Q0YzZhZjg1YWJkZjE3NWRlZDQ0YjE=

“The National Review’ is somewhat conservative for my taste. Its neutrality leaves much to be desired but I would not discount the magazine outright. Okay. I guess that we will just wait and see. It is pretty clear to me that unless conditions improve as a result of this surge in troop deployment, the Republican party will me in more trouble than it was in during the last election.

 

[Annie]

“The National Review’ is somewhat conservative for my taste. Its neutrality leaves much to be desired but I would not discount the magazine outright. Okay. I guess that we will just wait and see. It is pretty clear to me that unless conditions improve as a result of this surge in troop deployment, the Republican party will me in more trouble than it was in during the last election.

Ummm, like I said, 'links at site.'

 

[trobinett]

I don't know, isn't it like the team, that everyone fears(the United States)to face in battle, but once engaged, when the US is looking for that "knock out " blow, the coach won't send in the right play, or the right players?

We can beat ANYONE in a heads up battle, everyone knows that, the different terror organizations would be foolish to even consider such a course of action.

The PERFECT battle plan is to delay, delay, delay, run up the body count, and bring the whiners, and cry babies on board with THEIR way of thinking.

We are SO predictable, and SO vulnerable because of the left wing nut bags, that hold positions of authority in this great nation. And no, THAT is NOT what makes us a great, and free nation. What made(pass tenths)us a great and free nation, was the sacrifices made by our fighting forces, and the bold moves made by our leaders.

Are these times over?

Well, I don't know, for sure, but certainly as long as there are leaders, that are willing to stand up to the ebb, and flow of changing popular opinion, we still have a chance, not much of one, but I still hold out hope.

You even see it here.

Hawk got attacked by one, some wingnut, that will be gone in short order, Hawk held his own, and didn't get into a shit slinging contest with the ass wipe.

Gunny takes em on all the time, and always gives more than he receives.

Some of our regular "lefties" at least speak English, and know how to spell, and can put complete sentences together, its a pleasure to go back and forth with them.

I guess I'm kinda rambling at this point, but so many factors are in play right now, with how we are going to win this WOT, that I'm concerned our fellow citizens won't give our leaders the chance to complete the job.

Ok, now back to your regular scheduled programing.

 

[Annie]

I don't know, isn't it like the team, that everyone fears(the United States)to face in battle, but once engaged, when the US is looking for that "knock out " blow, the coach won't send in the right play, or the right players?

We can beat ANYONE in a heads up battle, everyone knows that, the different terror organizations would be foolish to even consider such a course of action.

The PERFECT battle plan is to delay, delay, delay, run up the body count, and bring the whiners, and cry babies on board with THEIR way of thinking.

We are SO predictable, and SO vulnerable because of the left wing nut bags, that hold positions of authority in this great nation. And no, THAT is NOT what makes us a great, and free nation. What made(pass tenths)us a great and free nation, was the sacrifices made by our fighting forces, and the bold moves made by our leaders.

Are these times over?

Well, I don't know, for sure, but certainly as long as there are leaders, that are willing to stand up to the ebb, and flow of changing popular opinion, we still have a chance, not much of one, but I still hold out hope.

You even see it here.

Hawk got attacked by one, some wingnut, that will be gone in short order, Hawk held his own, and didn't get into a shit slinging contest with the ass wipe.

Gunny takes em on all the time, and always gives more than he receives.

Some of our regular "lefties" at least speak English, and know how to spell, and can put complete sentences together, its a pleasure to go back and forth with them.

I guess I'm kinda rambling at this point, but so many factors are in play right now, with how we are going to win this WOT, that I'm concerned our fellow citizens won't give our leaders the chance to complete the job.

Ok, now back to your regular scheduled programing.

Most recent I can link to. Check out milbloggers.

http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/walking-the-line-2007-2.htm

West of Baghdad, Al Anbar Province is a vast, lawless frontier stretching to the Syrian border. The population is almost exclusively Sunni Arab, leaving little cause for sectarian violence but plenty of room for other reasons to fight. (View the region on this map and see the breakdown of religious affiliations on this one.) Major cities in Anbar Province, such as Fallujah, are fantastically dangerous. Yet the Marines and Army, along with some Navy and Air Force personnel, are probably stretched as thin here as the Border Patrol between the U.S. and Mexico. No matter how they spread it, our fighters simply do not have enough paint to cover the barn called Anbar.

The fighting is brutal. Snipers on both sides take their toll on heads, while hidden bombs can take America’s toughest tank—the mighty M1, weighing in at roughly 150,000 pounds—and heave it into the air, sending its heavy turret sailing a hundred yards, and flipping the rest of the burning hulk on its back like a giant, exploding turtle in what is called a catastrophic attack. When such bombs detonate under Humvees, the scattered remnants can fit into the trunk of another Humvee. Smaller IEDs and platter charges rip through the vehicles like a cannonball through fog, leaving some dusty mud-cratered roads looking like the moon.

As with “shaped charges,” which have been falsely touted as high-technology imports, EFPs or Explosively Formed Projectiles (a new and fancy name for a “platter charge”) are often just easy-fab cheap weapons that an illiterate person can be taught to make. That said, there is evidence that some EFPs in Iraq are higher-tech “factory made” bombs....

 

[manu1959]

there is no point in adding troops if you will not let them hunt and kill.....

 

[Bullypulpit]

Let's look at Chimpy's speech in a realistic light. It was "Stay the Course 2.0", nothing more.

$1 billion in economic aid for civilian jobs and infrastructure repair and rebuilding. That, according to a BBC report is a drawn down in economic assistance, and is too little too late. Rather than unbid contracts to US firms with ties to the administration, local contractors and labor should have been used from day one after Saddam was toppled. This also begs the question od just what Proconsul Bremmer did with $8.9 billion earmarked for just such activities during his tenure.

Given that Nouri al Maliki is little more than a tool of Muktada al Sadr, it is unrealistic to expect him to take any meaningful action against the Shia'a militias that have infiltrated the Iraqi police and military at all levels.

Rather than engage Iran and Syria in the process of stabilizing Iraq, which was highly recommended by the grown ups on the Iraq Study Group, Chimpy has chosen a different course....pure jingoism, antagonism, belligerence and actions which will likely provoke a military confrontation with one, or both nations. This was already undertaken when US forces sacked the Iranian Ambassadorial compound in Kurdistan, without sanction of Kurdish authorities. So having alienated every potential ally in the region, Chimpy McPresident has alienated our staunchest ally in Iraq...the Kurds. But this act is likely little more than a bald-faced attempt to provoke Iran into direct action against US forces thus justifying the committment of US forces against Iran. Why else put an admiral in command of US forces in Iraq if not to use the forces at his dispoal, in the form of the carrier battle-group dispatched to region, for actions against Iran. Whay else send Patriot missle bateries to the region, especially since there are no balistic missile threats to speak of in Iraq.

Despite the advice of his generals on the ground in Iraq...contrary to the advice of the Iraq Study Group...contrary to the advice of Congress...contrary to the will of the people...Chimpy has decided to add some twenty thousand troops to the numbers already in Iraq. These will not be new, fresh troops mind you. They will be compromised of troops already there who are having their tours extended. They will be compromised of troops being rotated in early, many for their third tour. Some much for his vaunted "Listening Tour"...In one ear and out the other, but that was predictable.

He did, and I will give him credit for this, take some measure of responsibility for the fiasco that is Iraq. However tepid and lackluster this acceptance of responsibility was, it is a near miracle that an alcoholic takes responsibility for ANYTHING. And yes, Chimpy MAY be off the sauce, but he is an alcoholic nonetheless and an untreated one at that. Thus he has all the attendant baggage, emotional and cognitive, that comes with that tragic disease. What is tragic for all of us is that this baggage renders him invulnerable to the voice of reason when he has set his mind to a given course action. Unfortunately that course of action carries all the risk of a chimpanzee playing with a box of matches in the middle of a fuel refinery. An unthinking act which could trigger a conflagration of world-wide proportions.