Last December I wrote a post called, Don't buy into George Bush's Iraq trap.
In it, I discussed what were then new plans for a so-called 'troop surge.' While I was wrong in predicting that the proposed troop surge would never even occur, it seems that I was right in my basic premise-- that it was all about framing the argument in a way that would allow the administration to 'stay the course.'
I wrote back then,
is shifting the frame of the debate. Instead of it being between 'stay the course' (his position) and 'withdraw' (the progressive position) which he would certainly lose, what he plans to do is try and get people debating the 'surge' (i.e. ratcheting up the war.) Those opposed are then debating against increasing troops, and as such are by default arguing only to not increase them (i.e. maintaining current levels-- 'staying the course.') He knows he doesn't have the votes in the new Congress to win, but what he is trying to do is play the Democrats for chumps, and get people to forget that we were talking about how to get out. Then he can lose the vote in Congress but still end up 'staying the course' (what he wants anyway). Only then that will become the the Democratic position (because it was in opposition to his 'new' position), and then if Iraq continues to deteriorate (as it will) and we continue to lose American troops (which we will) then it becomes the fault of Democrats.
In other words, he is trying to unload his lemon onto us.
If we fall for that, then we really are stupid. But unfortunately, based on what I've heard, there are some on the left who seem ready to take up this no-win debate.
Fast forward to today. The 'surge' is well underway, and this week the President announced that there will be a reduction of 30,000 troops by the middle of next year-- in other words back to the level they were at just before the 'surge'! Yup, you got it-- he is well on his way to maneuvering us into staying the course!!
Militarily, it could be argued that the surge has achieved some objectives, but then the same could be said of the initial 2003 invasion of Iraq as well. Politically the reconciliation which the surge was supposed to ensure still has not happened. If sectarian killings are down it is largely because so many predominantly Sunni or predominantly Shi'ite areas have been 'purified' (as Iraqis call it) and segregation created by driving out those minorities who did live there. On top of that, August showed an uptick in the number of civilian deaths. While this figure may to a degree reflect a series of bombings that killed 500 in one day in northern Iraq, it is clear that the surge has not stopped violence in Iraq, but at best has given it a brief respite. And even the most heralded 'success' in Iraq, the Sunni leaders in Anbar banding together to drive out al-Qaeda, was already happening before the 'surge' began and really has little to do with it.
But let's be clear what this was. It was a maneuver to buy a year for the President's failed policy so he could run out the clock on his mess, and it is no more or less than that.
Showing posts with label troop surge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label troop surge. Show all posts
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Lieberman caught off guard by angry questions from troops.
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), the 2000 Vice Presidential Candidate, made a surprise visit to Iraq this week. As usual for these unannounced visits (claim that things are overblown all you want-- visits by Americans to other countries are generally announced for weeks in advance), Lieberman mugged for the cameras and painted a rosy picture, saying “what I see here today is progress, significant progress.”
That wasn't the picture a few hours later, when he actually met some of the troops.
McClatchy reports tonight on Spc. David Williams, who collected questions for Lieberman from 30 other troops.
At the top of his note card was the question he got from nearly every one of his fellow soldiers:
“When are we going to get out of here?”
The rest was a laundry list. When would they have upgraded Humvees that could withstand the armor-penetrating weapons that U.S. officials claim are from Iran? When could they have body armor that was better in hot weather?...
Next to him, Spc. Will Hedin, 21, of Chester, Conn., thought about what he was going to say.
“We’re not making any progress,” Hedin said, as he recalled a comrade who was shot by a sniper last week. “It just seems like we drive around and wait to get shot at. … It’s just more troops, more targets.”
As for the 'troop surge' itself, it appears not to be stanching the violence. The number of unidentified corpses in Baghdad, after falling in April jumped up by seventy percent in May as militias returned to the streets.
In fact, the only real 'surge' is in the number of U.S. troop deaths. April and May were the first two consecutive months since the start of the war in 2003 in which the total number of U.S. troop deaths was over a hundred in both months, and in fact it has broken 100 in four of the past eight months-- as opposed to only reaching that level three times in a calendar month, in the first 3 and a half years of the war.
I find that particularly depressing because I predicted thsi would happen. I'd have much rather been proven wrong, but instead, the Administration's new war policy has simply produced more dead Americans, and apparently (based on the above numbers from the street) no let up in the rate of Iraqis murdering other Iraqis.
That wasn't the picture a few hours later, when he actually met some of the troops.
McClatchy reports tonight on Spc. David Williams, who collected questions for Lieberman from 30 other troops.
At the top of his note card was the question he got from nearly every one of his fellow soldiers:
“When are we going to get out of here?”
The rest was a laundry list. When would they have upgraded Humvees that could withstand the armor-penetrating weapons that U.S. officials claim are from Iran? When could they have body armor that was better in hot weather?...
Next to him, Spc. Will Hedin, 21, of Chester, Conn., thought about what he was going to say.
“We’re not making any progress,” Hedin said, as he recalled a comrade who was shot by a sniper last week. “It just seems like we drive around and wait to get shot at. … It’s just more troops, more targets.”
As for the 'troop surge' itself, it appears not to be stanching the violence. The number of unidentified corpses in Baghdad, after falling in April jumped up by seventy percent in May as militias returned to the streets.
In fact, the only real 'surge' is in the number of U.S. troop deaths. April and May were the first two consecutive months since the start of the war in 2003 in which the total number of U.S. troop deaths was over a hundred in both months, and in fact it has broken 100 in four of the past eight months-- as opposed to only reaching that level three times in a calendar month, in the first 3 and a half years of the war.
I find that particularly depressing because I predicted thsi would happen. I'd have much rather been proven wrong, but instead, the Administration's new war policy has simply produced more dead Americans, and apparently (based on the above numbers from the street) no let up in the rate of Iraqis murdering other Iraqis.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
56 for. 34 against. 1 unable to vote. And 9 afraid to vote.
On the Senate vote to end the filibuster and move forward with the nonbinding resolution opposing the President's troop increase plan for Iraq, it failed to get the necessary 60 votes, failing 56-34.
Seven Republicans (Coleman (MN), Collins (ME), Hagel (NE), Smith (OR), Snowe (ME), Spectre (PA) and Warner (VA)) joined 49 Democrats in voting to move forward on the resolution. Democrat Tim Johnson of South Dakota is still recovering from emergency brain surgery and was unable to vote.
Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut joined 33 Republicans in voting against moving forward. I don't agree with this position, but at least they were all willing to stand up and be counted for what they believe in.
If you do the math, you will see that this means that nine Republicans did not vote on this at all. They in fact hold the key-- if even half of them had voted to move the resolution forward it would have, and if seven of them had voted with their party-mates then it would have clearly sent a message that the GOP could block such a resolution in the Senate and won't support it (since their own party leaders are pushing a plan that would also require sixty votes, not just to end debate, but to actually pass the resolution-- a very unusual requirement for a floor vote).
In other words, this is a resolution on a plan that will either result in a turning point in Iraq (if the President, against mine and a lot of other expectations turns out to be right) or a catastrophic increase in American casualties and more to the point, giving insurgents if they are still around next year the ammunition to claim they took our 'best shot' and still came through it (therefore making our failure worse). And these nine couldn't even muster the backbone to have a position.
Seven Republicans (Coleman (MN), Collins (ME), Hagel (NE), Smith (OR), Snowe (ME), Spectre (PA) and Warner (VA)) joined 49 Democrats in voting to move forward on the resolution. Democrat Tim Johnson of South Dakota is still recovering from emergency brain surgery and was unable to vote.
Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut joined 33 Republicans in voting against moving forward. I don't agree with this position, but at least they were all willing to stand up and be counted for what they believe in.
If you do the math, you will see that this means that nine Republicans did not vote on this at all. They in fact hold the key-- if even half of them had voted to move the resolution forward it would have, and if seven of them had voted with their party-mates then it would have clearly sent a message that the GOP could block such a resolution in the Senate and won't support it (since their own party leaders are pushing a plan that would also require sixty votes, not just to end debate, but to actually pass the resolution-- a very unusual requirement for a floor vote).
In other words, this is a resolution on a plan that will either result in a turning point in Iraq (if the President, against mine and a lot of other expectations turns out to be right) or a catastrophic increase in American casualties and more to the point, giving insurgents if they are still around next year the ammunition to claim they took our 'best shot' and still came through it (therefore making our failure worse). And these nine couldn't even muster the backbone to have a position.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Molly Ivins leaves us with a last word:
Molly Ivins died yesterday after a long battle with breast cancer. She was sixty two.
I thought about a lot of things I could say about her. Her insightful columns were all at the same time funny, authoritative, thought-inspiring, fun to read and enjoyable. Certainly we on the left have lost a very articulate voice.
She has been very outspoken about a number of topics during the past few years, especially the Patriot Act. She has wondered openly why we are so afraid that we are willing to sacrifice basic freedoms for the perception of increased security. So I could have done something on that.
But instead I will post Ivins' last column, against the troop surge. In many ways it is classic Molly Ivins, but it also seems more humorless and direct than some of her ealier columns (of course it hard to make light of the horrible situation we now find ourselves in in Iraq, so she can be excused for not being more humorous here). She clearly died much before it was time. She says much in here that I agree with, and she as usual calls it like she sees it:
The purpose of this old-fashioned newspaper crusade to stop the war is not to make George W. Bush look like the dumbest president ever. People have done dumber things. What were they thinking when they bought into the Bay of Pigs fiasco? How dumb was the Egypt-Suez war? How massively stupid was the entire war in Vietnam? Even at that, the challenge with this misbegotten adventure is that WE simply cannot let it continue.
It is not a matter of whether we will lose or we are losing. We have lost. Gen. John P. Abizaid, until recently the senior commander in the Middle East, insists that the answer to our problems there is not military. "You have to internationalize the problem. You have to attack it diplomatically, geo-strategically," he said.
His assessment is supported by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who only recommend releasing forces with a clear definition of the goals for the additional troops.
Bush's call for a "surge" or "escalation" also goes against the Iraq Study Group. Talk is that the White House has planned to do anything but what the group suggested after months of investigation and proposals based on much broader strategic implications.
About the only politician out there besides Bush actively calling for a surge is Sen. John McCain. In a recent opinion piece, he wrote: "The presence of additional coalition forces would allow the Iraqi government to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own — impose its rule throughout the country. ... By surging troops and bringing security to Baghdad and other areas, we will give the Iraqis the best possible chance to succeed." But with all due respect to the senator from Arizona, that ship has long since sailed.
A surge is not acceptable to the people in this country — we have voted overwhelmingly against this war in polls (about 80 percent of the public is against escalation, and a recent Military Times poll shows only 38 percent of active military want more troops sent) and at the polls.
We know this is wrong. The people understand, the people have the right to make this decision, and the people have the obligation to make sure our will is implemented.
Congress must work for the people in the resolution of this fiasco. Ted Kennedy's proposal to control the money and tighten oversight is a welcome first step. And if Republicans want to continue to rubber-stamp this administration's idiotic "plans" and go against the will of the people, they should be thrown out as soon as possible, to join their recent colleagues.
Anyone who wants to talk knowledgably about our Iraq misadventure should pick up Rajiv Chandrasekaran's "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone." It's like reading a horror novel. You just want to put your face down and moan: How could we have let this happen? How could we have been so stupid?
As The Washington Post's review notes, Chandrasekaran's book "methodically documents the baffling ineptitude that dominated U.S. attempts to influence Iraq's fiendish politics, rebuild the electrical grid, privatize the economy, run the oil industry, recruit expert staff or instill a modicum of normalcy to the lives of Iraqis."
We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we're for them and trying to get them out of there. Hit the streets to protest Bush's proposed surge. If you can, go to the peace march in Washington on Jan. 27. We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, "Stop it, now!"
I thought about a lot of things I could say about her. Her insightful columns were all at the same time funny, authoritative, thought-inspiring, fun to read and enjoyable. Certainly we on the left have lost a very articulate voice.
She has been very outspoken about a number of topics during the past few years, especially the Patriot Act. She has wondered openly why we are so afraid that we are willing to sacrifice basic freedoms for the perception of increased security. So I could have done something on that.
But instead I will post Ivins' last column, against the troop surge. In many ways it is classic Molly Ivins, but it also seems more humorless and direct than some of her ealier columns (of course it hard to make light of the horrible situation we now find ourselves in in Iraq, so she can be excused for not being more humorous here). She clearly died much before it was time. She says much in here that I agree with, and she as usual calls it like she sees it:
The purpose of this old-fashioned newspaper crusade to stop the war is not to make George W. Bush look like the dumbest president ever. People have done dumber things. What were they thinking when they bought into the Bay of Pigs fiasco? How dumb was the Egypt-Suez war? How massively stupid was the entire war in Vietnam? Even at that, the challenge with this misbegotten adventure is that WE simply cannot let it continue.
It is not a matter of whether we will lose or we are losing. We have lost. Gen. John P. Abizaid, until recently the senior commander in the Middle East, insists that the answer to our problems there is not military. "You have to internationalize the problem. You have to attack it diplomatically, geo-strategically," he said.
His assessment is supported by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who only recommend releasing forces with a clear definition of the goals for the additional troops.
Bush's call for a "surge" or "escalation" also goes against the Iraq Study Group. Talk is that the White House has planned to do anything but what the group suggested after months of investigation and proposals based on much broader strategic implications.
About the only politician out there besides Bush actively calling for a surge is Sen. John McCain. In a recent opinion piece, he wrote: "The presence of additional coalition forces would allow the Iraqi government to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own — impose its rule throughout the country. ... By surging troops and bringing security to Baghdad and other areas, we will give the Iraqis the best possible chance to succeed." But with all due respect to the senator from Arizona, that ship has long since sailed.
A surge is not acceptable to the people in this country — we have voted overwhelmingly against this war in polls (about 80 percent of the public is against escalation, and a recent Military Times poll shows only 38 percent of active military want more troops sent) and at the polls.
We know this is wrong. The people understand, the people have the right to make this decision, and the people have the obligation to make sure our will is implemented.
Congress must work for the people in the resolution of this fiasco. Ted Kennedy's proposal to control the money and tighten oversight is a welcome first step. And if Republicans want to continue to rubber-stamp this administration's idiotic "plans" and go against the will of the people, they should be thrown out as soon as possible, to join their recent colleagues.
Anyone who wants to talk knowledgably about our Iraq misadventure should pick up Rajiv Chandrasekaran's "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone." It's like reading a horror novel. You just want to put your face down and moan: How could we have let this happen? How could we have been so stupid?
As The Washington Post's review notes, Chandrasekaran's book "methodically documents the baffling ineptitude that dominated U.S. attempts to influence Iraq's fiendish politics, rebuild the electrical grid, privatize the economy, run the oil industry, recruit expert staff or instill a modicum of normalcy to the lives of Iraqis."
We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we're for them and trying to get them out of there. Hit the streets to protest Bush's proposed surge. If you can, go to the peace march in Washington on Jan. 27. We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, "Stop it, now!"
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
I wanted to say this but obviously Bill Richardson is on my wavelength
It looks like Richardson day today. Following up the last post, he had the following press release on George Bush's speech. I had been planning to blog about the President's speech, but Gov. Bill's press release says it better than I could have:
"I strongly oppose any plan to increase American troop levels in Iraq. Sending more American troops will not make us safer. It will only add to the sectarian violence that is already tearing Iraq apart. I am also very concerned with this plan’s impact on our overburdened National Guard forces, which already compose half of our forces in Iraq.
The only surge we need in Iraq is a diplomatic one. We need to withdraw American troops from Iraq this year, redeploy our men and women to Afghanistan and other international terrorism hotspots, and reinvigorate our diplomacy throughout the Middle East. We need a political solution to the Iraq crisis, not a military one."
Amen.
"I strongly oppose any plan to increase American troop levels in Iraq. Sending more American troops will not make us safer. It will only add to the sectarian violence that is already tearing Iraq apart. I am also very concerned with this plan’s impact on our overburdened National Guard forces, which already compose half of our forces in Iraq.
The only surge we need in Iraq is a diplomatic one. We need to withdraw American troops from Iraq this year, redeploy our men and women to Afghanistan and other international terrorism hotspots, and reinvigorate our diplomacy throughout the Middle East. We need a political solution to the Iraq crisis, not a military one."
Amen.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
More troops won't be the answer.
Some on the right have suggested that we on the left are hypocrites for suggesting that the President invaded Iraq with too few troops to get the job done, but opposing a troop surge today.
In fact, there is no hypocrisy here. Just an acknowlegement of fact. Facts that involve both scale and timing.
It is true that Eric Shinseki was right when he cited a 1999 exercise that showed that 400,000 troops at a minimum would be required to occupy Iraq in order to prevent an insurgency. I've blogged on that a number of times, most recently two weeks ago in the post, Don't buy into George Bush's Iraq trap.
Unfortunately President Bush did not take Shinseki's advice, in fact he was punished and forced into retirement for giving it, and we invaded with too few. And just as the 1999 exercise predicted, an insurgency occurred.
Further, that number was only good at the time. The exercise did not model actually fighting the insurgency, although since it takes more energy to fight anything (be it a disease, a weed, a fire or an insurgency) after it has taken root than it does to prevent it, we can presume that what would have been sufficient to prevent it, would still not be enough to end it, even if that many troops could be found.
The highest number of American troops to since occupy Iraq was 160,000, a level reached in February of 2005. As we can see, that did not stop the insurgency, which has since become even more extensive than it was before that. Yet this is the same troop level which the President is today proposing-- a drop in the bucket which will if anything only increase the violence. In fact, in February 2005 there were more international troops. Today there are fewer so the President in fact is proposing to get the violence under control using fewer troops than what we've already tried and failed with. And it is doomed to further failure.
He may claim that there are Iraqi forces which will make up the difference. Oh, yes. Those Iraqi forces which have been so infiltrated by Shi'ite militias that the British have had to fight Iraqi security forces in Basra and had to destroy a police station just a couple of weeks ago on Christmas day, to stop the torture and murders that were going on inside. In fact, we saw a fine demonstration of the discipline and control of the Iraqi security forces during the hanging of Saddam. The government was so incompetent or has such little control over their own handpicked execution team that they couldn't even find a dozen men among their security who they could be sure were not members of Shi'ite militias. It would be almost impossible to find a way to make Saddam look like a commanding presence anymore, but they managed to find the fools who could bungle the hanging badly enough to achieve that outcome (and turn him into a Sunni martyr). Yet these are the people who the Bush administration thinks will be able to help us gain control of Iraq?
I think I once wrote a post in which I referred to Elliot Ness. He had no success against Capone's organization as long as he was taking along any Chicago police on his raids-- because Capone's men by that time pretty much had infiltrated every single police unit, all the way up to the top. And so it is with Iraqi security. Not only the Shi'ite Mahdi militia of Muqtada al-Sadr (though there were obviously some Mahdi militia members who got onto the Saddam execution detail). But also the much more dangerous and disciplined Iranian-backed Badr brigade. The Badr brigade has almost ceased to exist as an independent and identifiable force in Iraq because they have followed the advice of their handlers in Tehran and signed up for and donned the uniform of the Iraqi army and police.
Yet this is who the President proposes to take along on raids against Shi'ite militias and death squads. It would be as if Elliot Ness had invited the Chicago police to go with him on a raid personally targetting Capone himself. When our troops are lucky, the raids will be failures and the targets will have quickly "left" the area, as if they knew we were coming. When our troops are not so lucky, the raids will turn into bloody ambushes. I don't know about you, but I can see that new 'phase' of the war coming just about as plain as the sunrise, what with the talk about going after the Shi'ite militias and the parallel talk about taking the Iraqi units along for the fighting. Does George Bush not see that? Or does he no longer care, just as long as he can buy time to get through the next two years, at whatever cost in American blood, and have his successor be the one to realize that we have to negotiate our way out and pull the plug on continued pointless American military action in Iraq? Once again, we find ourselves stuck in the middle of somebody else's civil war. 'Out Now' makes a heck of a lot more sense than 'raise the ante.'
So no, there is no hypocrisy here. There was a time when a large enough occupation force would have worked. But that was a force three times as large as we have now, and the time was in mid-2003. Adding twenty thousand troops today will produce absolutely nothing except to fill more coffins.
In fact, there is no hypocrisy here. Just an acknowlegement of fact. Facts that involve both scale and timing.
It is true that Eric Shinseki was right when he cited a 1999 exercise that showed that 400,000 troops at a minimum would be required to occupy Iraq in order to prevent an insurgency. I've blogged on that a number of times, most recently two weeks ago in the post, Don't buy into George Bush's Iraq trap.
Unfortunately President Bush did not take Shinseki's advice, in fact he was punished and forced into retirement for giving it, and we invaded with too few. And just as the 1999 exercise predicted, an insurgency occurred.
Further, that number was only good at the time. The exercise did not model actually fighting the insurgency, although since it takes more energy to fight anything (be it a disease, a weed, a fire or an insurgency) after it has taken root than it does to prevent it, we can presume that what would have been sufficient to prevent it, would still not be enough to end it, even if that many troops could be found.
The highest number of American troops to since occupy Iraq was 160,000, a level reached in February of 2005. As we can see, that did not stop the insurgency, which has since become even more extensive than it was before that. Yet this is the same troop level which the President is today proposing-- a drop in the bucket which will if anything only increase the violence. In fact, in February 2005 there were more international troops. Today there are fewer so the President in fact is proposing to get the violence under control using fewer troops than what we've already tried and failed with. And it is doomed to further failure.
He may claim that there are Iraqi forces which will make up the difference. Oh, yes. Those Iraqi forces which have been so infiltrated by Shi'ite militias that the British have had to fight Iraqi security forces in Basra and had to destroy a police station just a couple of weeks ago on Christmas day, to stop the torture and murders that were going on inside. In fact, we saw a fine demonstration of the discipline and control of the Iraqi security forces during the hanging of Saddam. The government was so incompetent or has such little control over their own handpicked execution team that they couldn't even find a dozen men among their security who they could be sure were not members of Shi'ite militias. It would be almost impossible to find a way to make Saddam look like a commanding presence anymore, but they managed to find the fools who could bungle the hanging badly enough to achieve that outcome (and turn him into a Sunni martyr). Yet these are the people who the Bush administration thinks will be able to help us gain control of Iraq?
I think I once wrote a post in which I referred to Elliot Ness. He had no success against Capone's organization as long as he was taking along any Chicago police on his raids-- because Capone's men by that time pretty much had infiltrated every single police unit, all the way up to the top. And so it is with Iraqi security. Not only the Shi'ite Mahdi militia of Muqtada al-Sadr (though there were obviously some Mahdi militia members who got onto the Saddam execution detail). But also the much more dangerous and disciplined Iranian-backed Badr brigade. The Badr brigade has almost ceased to exist as an independent and identifiable force in Iraq because they have followed the advice of their handlers in Tehran and signed up for and donned the uniform of the Iraqi army and police.
Yet this is who the President proposes to take along on raids against Shi'ite militias and death squads. It would be as if Elliot Ness had invited the Chicago police to go with him on a raid personally targetting Capone himself. When our troops are lucky, the raids will be failures and the targets will have quickly "left" the area, as if they knew we were coming. When our troops are not so lucky, the raids will turn into bloody ambushes. I don't know about you, but I can see that new 'phase' of the war coming just about as plain as the sunrise, what with the talk about going after the Shi'ite militias and the parallel talk about taking the Iraqi units along for the fighting. Does George Bush not see that? Or does he no longer care, just as long as he can buy time to get through the next two years, at whatever cost in American blood, and have his successor be the one to realize that we have to negotiate our way out and pull the plug on continued pointless American military action in Iraq? Once again, we find ourselves stuck in the middle of somebody else's civil war. 'Out Now' makes a heck of a lot more sense than 'raise the ante.'
So no, there is no hypocrisy here. There was a time when a large enough occupation force would have worked. But that was a force three times as large as we have now, and the time was in mid-2003. Adding twenty thousand troops today will produce absolutely nothing except to fill more coffins.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Don't buy into George Bush's Iraq trap
The American people have had enough of Iraq. The polls show it.
Many Democrats who won this year had endorsed the Murtha plan for a staged withdrawl from Iraq.
The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group released its recommendations and also called for a withdrawl.
Yet, just two weeks ago it began to be reported that the President wanted to propose a 'surge' in troop strength, and was opposed by Generals.
So now, the Generals appear to have flip-flopped and back Bush (well, the last General to publically oppose the President on troop levels, Eric Shinseki before the war started, was forced to leave the army. The lesson clearly has not been lost.)
To start with, his proposal to increase troop strength by 20,000 troops is stupid. But I actually don't think he is planning to. More on that later.
If we increased troops by 20,000 it would make no difference. Shinseki's recommendation in 2002 (based on a 1999 exercise which quantified it) was that 400,000 troops total (265,000 more than are there now) would be needed to prevent an insurgency. Adding what amounts to a spit in the bucket of 20,000 today won't stop it, because it would be hundreds of thousands too little, and several years too late.
And George Bush knows that. So do the generals. But that isn't really his plan.
He will say it is because he is shifting the frame of the debate. Instead of it being between 'stay the course' (his position) and 'withdraw' (the progressive position) which he would certainly lose, what he plans to do is try and get people debating the 'surge' (i.e. ratcheting up the war.) Those opposed are then debating against increasing troops, and as such are by default arguing only to not increase them (i.e. maintaining current levels-- 'staying the course.') He knows he doesn't have the votes in the new Congress to win, but what he is trying to do is play the Democrats for chumps, and get people to forget that we were talking about how to get out. Then he can lose the vote in Congress but still end up 'staying the course' (what he wants anyway). Only then that will become the the Democratic position (because it was in opposition to his 'new' position), and then if Iraq continues to deteriorate (as it will) and we continue to lose American troops (which we will) then it becomes the fault of Democrats.
In other words, he is trying to unload his lemon onto us.
If we fall for that, then we really are stupid. But unfortunately, based on what I've heard, there are some on the left who seem ready to take up this no-win debate. For example, in today's radio address Congressman-elect Jerry McNerney said that Democrats will oppose deploying any new troops there. Nothing at all about plans to withdraw or seek a political solution. So it appears, despite his line about seeking a 'new direction' (a politically meaningless catchword that can be applied to almost anything) that the good Congressman-elect is being roped into a plan to in effect debate in favor of continuing the President's current policy and stay in Iraq indefinitely.
We as Democrats should be firm on this:
1. The voters want us to get troops out of Iraq, not leave them there.
2. The Murtha plan is a militarily sound plan that spells out a path to withdrawl of U.S. forces from Iraq.
3. The bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission (I.S.G.) studied all the problems of Iraq and concluded that withdrawl is the only realistic military option for the United States.
4. The United States and other countries in the region, as well as factions within Iraq need to work to find a political, not a military solution. Iraq's problems can only be solved by a political solution, not a solution imposed by military force.
Many Democrats who won this year had endorsed the Murtha plan for a staged withdrawl from Iraq.
The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group released its recommendations and also called for a withdrawl.
Yet, just two weeks ago it began to be reported that the President wanted to propose a 'surge' in troop strength, and was opposed by Generals.
So now, the Generals appear to have flip-flopped and back Bush (well, the last General to publically oppose the President on troop levels, Eric Shinseki before the war started, was forced to leave the army. The lesson clearly has not been lost.)
To start with, his proposal to increase troop strength by 20,000 troops is stupid. But I actually don't think he is planning to. More on that later.
If we increased troops by 20,000 it would make no difference. Shinseki's recommendation in 2002 (based on a 1999 exercise which quantified it) was that 400,000 troops total (265,000 more than are there now) would be needed to prevent an insurgency. Adding what amounts to a spit in the bucket of 20,000 today won't stop it, because it would be hundreds of thousands too little, and several years too late.
And George Bush knows that. So do the generals. But that isn't really his plan.
He will say it is because he is shifting the frame of the debate. Instead of it being between 'stay the course' (his position) and 'withdraw' (the progressive position) which he would certainly lose, what he plans to do is try and get people debating the 'surge' (i.e. ratcheting up the war.) Those opposed are then debating against increasing troops, and as such are by default arguing only to not increase them (i.e. maintaining current levels-- 'staying the course.') He knows he doesn't have the votes in the new Congress to win, but what he is trying to do is play the Democrats for chumps, and get people to forget that we were talking about how to get out. Then he can lose the vote in Congress but still end up 'staying the course' (what he wants anyway). Only then that will become the the Democratic position (because it was in opposition to his 'new' position), and then if Iraq continues to deteriorate (as it will) and we continue to lose American troops (which we will) then it becomes the fault of Democrats.
In other words, he is trying to unload his lemon onto us.
If we fall for that, then we really are stupid. But unfortunately, based on what I've heard, there are some on the left who seem ready to take up this no-win debate. For example, in today's radio address Congressman-elect Jerry McNerney said that Democrats will oppose deploying any new troops there. Nothing at all about plans to withdraw or seek a political solution. So it appears, despite his line about seeking a 'new direction' (a politically meaningless catchword that can be applied to almost anything) that the good Congressman-elect is being roped into a plan to in effect debate in favor of continuing the President's current policy and stay in Iraq indefinitely.
We as Democrats should be firm on this:
1. The voters want us to get troops out of Iraq, not leave them there.
2. The Murtha plan is a militarily sound plan that spells out a path to withdrawl of U.S. forces from Iraq.
3. The bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission (I.S.G.) studied all the problems of Iraq and concluded that withdrawl is the only realistic military option for the United States.
4. The United States and other countries in the region, as well as factions within Iraq need to work to find a political, not a military solution. Iraq's problems can only be solved by a political solution, not a solution imposed by military force.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
