There’s one thing in particular that puzzles me about this: since Bush announced the surge in January, why do we need until next year to see whether it’s working? Isn’t one Friedman Unit enough?
If you’re serious, then think of it this way-- we still don’t have all the “surge” troops over there yet, so when does the Friedman Unit begin? But it’s hard for me to imagine a situation where Bush is going to come out and say “it isn’t working”. He may say “it isn’t working as well as we had hoped, yet” or something like that, but he can’t admit defeat. No way.
The relevant Friedman unit is always the next one. That’s the way it’s been for over four years. Why change now?
Sooner or later even the most optimistic supporters will have to admit that no matter how hard and how fast we dig the hole isn’t getting any shallower.
I just watched Chris Shays (R, Conn) on Hardball and was struck by the rationalizing. To hear Shays one would assume that the previous military commanders were all lacking in competence. His line is that we’ve got to give the new tactic a chance because we now have a general with a plan and he deserves an opportunity to carry out that plan.
Here is Shays (click on Showdown Over War Funding - Part 2) saying that Petraeus wasn’t part of the mistakes that were made before. He doesn’t exactly specify who made the mistakes. However the president claimed to be listening to “my generals” and following their lead so if “mistakes were made” it must have been the generals. Right?
Military moves be damned. This all depends on the Iraqi politicians taking advantage of whatever increased security the military action provides to get their act together. Does anyone see any signs of that? One thing they do seem to agree on and that is to take two months off.
The vote gets veto-proof in September, if even the House Minority Leader thinks so:
Anyone else notice that NPR and CNN always refer to him as the ‘House Republican Leader’, but last year consistently called Pelosi the ‘House Minority Leader’?
Okay, kids.
Hands up if you actually managed to believe that “The Surge” wasn’t actually a bullshit euphemism for “Escalation”.
-Joe
Aaaww. Poor baby. At least they don’t call Pelosi the “House Minority Leader” any more. It’s “House Majority Leadery” now.
I thought “The Surge” was actually better suited to be a porn-film title, just like “Coalition of the Willing.”
Both your quoted terms are bullshit, IMO.
An escalation, to me anyways, means a serious increase in the number of troops.
The surge is purely a political dog and pony show, presented as if it’s something we haven’t tried before. Our troops in Iraq go up and down all the time by as much as 30,000 – just look look down the U.S. column here. Or, for an example of a similar ‘surge’ which happened back in late 2004, check out this old article.
Now, one factor I’d consider as an escalation has been the huge injection of private soldiers* who get paid many times the going rate of the U.S. grunts. You know, Black Water and the like. I think the numbers are somewhere near 75,000-100,000 now but I’m not sure. I know it passed 50K a long time ago.
-
- They don’t like to be called mercenaries.
IMO an “escalation” is an increase in the number of troops for the duration of “the war”, whichever war that might be. A “surge” is a temporary increase that can be scaled back after a definite amount of time.
The fact that, be it a “surge” or an “escalation”, it is such a laughably tiny increase that it wouldn’t make a real impact anyway has nothing to do with that fact that Our Fearless Leaders have lied to us again and some people managed to swallow it again.
Yay. Then we get more stories about how some private contractors (who were only there to deliver formula to Iraqi orphans) got brutally murdered and mutilated.
-Joe
Well, this video report by Tim Russert is interesting:
11 Republicans Berate Bush Over Iraq In Private White House Meeting
The Washington Times is also carrying the story
If report is accurate, and the President is being truthful, this puts a hole in statements like the OP’s
Perhaps Bush has a fiendishly clever plan?
No, it puts holes in the theory that many people seem to have that Dubya can do anything he wants without repercussions. Either he was trying to soften the landing or he actually does care about the GOP.
Or it was the best way for him to get them to STFU and give him what he wants for the rest of his term.
-Joe
We’ve always been surging in Eastasia.
The notion that a nation invaded by a superpower under a mistaken provocation can be successfully occupied and policed by a foreign military under any circumstance is so patently ridiculous I do not understand how anyone can spend time arguing technique.
Sure, the “situation” in Iraq is complicated by their religion, culture, history and so on.
But if I looked outside and bunch of Iraqi soldiers were parading down my street in their tanks thinking they were helping me sort out my problems, I’d do whatever I could to send the SOBs packing.
Let the surge continue until the situation improves, my a$$. The only thing anyone has to do if they want to consider whether or not our continued presence has a bat’s chance of improving anything at all is to reflect upon our reaction should the situation be reversed…