The thing is, we tried the whole “add more troops to the mix” solution in August, when the US presence in Baghdad was boosted in order to quell the insurgency. Since then, the insurgency has continued full-bore, and the US death toll these past few months has shot up as well. Why does anyone think that adding another 10,000-20,000 troops will do anything other than set some new casualty records for American troops in future months?
Well, there is that one surprise. Since our focus is now on training, I am surprised to learn that so many of our troops have such specialized training, as to be useful military trainers in a foreign language. Heck, I thought they were mostly riflemen, medics, clerks, truck drivers, etc. Had no idea we had such a substantial contingent of bi-lingual military training specialists!
Either that, or I am surprised that something as complex as military training can be conveyed with a vocabulary of grunts and gestures.
[sidelight]Entirely differenct circumstances. However it’s sort of interesting that the US Army in Germany went from “No fraternization” or get a summary court martial to German war brides in something like a year and a half.[/sidelight]
Further news on the “not bothering to hide it” front: Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News reports that an Administration official “admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one.”
Huffington Post article says Abazaid and Casey are being fired next week. I listen to my generals, unless they disagree. Then i get new ones. Some more Bush lies.
Honestly, I think increasing troop levels will only delay the inevitable, which will be an eventual withdrawal leading to civil war. I am not saying that it would have been easy to get things going on the right track from the invasion (one of the reasons I was against it), but I know for sure that we blew whatever chance we had. From what I gather, there was a time period where we could have taken advantage of the nascent stage in the insurgency to create a very strong Iraqi military which would have been the ideal force to keep any insurgency in check (or to prevent it from occurring). Now there is simply too much violence, and the only force that keeps the government in power is the US Military. Once that goes away, it’s only a matter of time before the insurgent groups reactivate. They also have a lot of practice by now as well. Increasing the military presence will definitely increase the death toll in the short term. The question is do we have the fortitude as a nation to withstand a war that lasts many years in an increasingly violent state. I doubt that, but supposing we do, I think it will only leave the country in a more battered state after we leave. I think the single worst mistake that the Bush team made in the post-war period was the decommissioning of the Iraqi military. Saddam’s military arm was very efficient at keeping the country together at that time. Of course his way of doing it wouldn’t be compatible with a free society, I believe the original Iraqi military was the best suited. Sure, the particularly heinous ones couldn’t stay, but I think the rest would actually behave in a somewhat civilized manner. It’s just an example of how Bush let ideology trump practicality. Come to think of it, that’s the way he always is…