The "surge" in Iraq --- giant bait-and-switch may be heading our way

[TexasLawyer]

The term "surge" implies that the military exercise will be over relatively quickly. And the surge is being described by BushCo as a maneuver that will be over in 6 to 8 months.

But the real intent and strategy behind the "surge" might be found in some of the recent efforts by administration mouthpieces to convince right-wingers that a surge of troops in Iraq is a good idea. Americans are being sold a "surge" but it seems likely that we'll actually be buying a long-term escalation of the war. A classic bait and switch.

RW organizations and publications such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Daily Standard (Bill Kristol's rag) are out there vocally calling for the surge, always with very "we-cannot-fail" flowery language. These articles either come right out and say that the surge must be "long and lasting" or they stay silent on how long additional forces would be required to stay. But even where there's silence on the length of the surge, it seems obvious, from the various rationales for the surge, that "clearing and holding Baghdad," "securing Anbar Province," and other tasks are no 6 month jobs.

Here are some recent articles:


The Right Type of "Surge"
Any troop increase must be large and lasting.

by Jack Keane & Frederick W. Kagan
12/27/2006 2:00:00 PM

<snip>

We need to cut through the confusion. Bringing security to Baghdad--the essential precondition for political compromise, national reconciliation and economic development--is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail.

The key to the success is to change the military mission--instead of preparing for transition to Iraqi control, that mission should be to bring security to the Iraqi population. Surges aimed at accelerating the training of Iraqi forces will fail, because rising sectarian violence will destroy Iraq before the new forces can bring it under control.

<snip>

Of all the "surge" options out there, short ones are the most dangerous. Increasing troop levels in Baghdad for three or six months would virtually ensure defeat. It takes that long for newly arrived soldiers to begin to understand the areas where they operate. Short surges would redeploy them just as they began to be effective.

In addition, a short surge would play into the enemy's hands. Both Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias expect the U.S. presence to fade away over the course of 2007, and they expect any surge to be brief. They will naturally go to ground in the face of a short surge and wait until we have left. They will then attack the civilian population and whatever Iraqi security forces remain, knowing them to be easier targets than U.S. soldiers and Marines. They will work hard to raise the level of sectarian violence in order to prove that our efforts have failed.

<snip>

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/124mvwef.asp



******************************
Send More Troops to Baghdad and We'll Have a Fighting Chance

By Frederick W. Kagan
Posted: Tuesday, December 26, 2006

<snip>
The increase in US troops cannot be short-term. Clearing and holding the critical areas of Baghdad will require all of 2007. Expanding the secured areas into Anbar, up the Diyala River valley, north to Mosul and beyond will take part of 2008.

It is unlikely that the Iraqi army and police will be able to assume full responsibility for security for at least 18 to 24 months after the beginning of this operation.

This strategy will place a greater burden on the already overstrained American ground forces, but the risk is worth taking. Defeat will break the American army and marines more surely and more disastrously than extending combat tours. And the price of defeat for Iraq, the region and the world in any case is far too high to bear.

******************************

Why We Need More Troops in Iraq

By Joseph Lieberman
Friday, December 29, 2006; Page A27

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/28/AR2006122801055.html

[Horse with no Name]

1. I had this discussion over the holidays

Once we put 50,000 troops in...then what?
Deny more when they ask?
If the troops we have now are in trouble...then we acknowledge that any troops are in trouble. Do we deny them then?
It's time to admit defeat and bring them home.
You can throw logs on a fire and keep it going forever...and you can throw soldiers in a war and keep it going forever.
But THAT is really the plan, isn't it?

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

2. The only "surge" that will mean anything

will be to initiate a draft and declare war.

Other than that we are just pissing in the wind, again.


See you guys on the embassy roof!

At least this one is designed for evacuation (I should hope at least, as much as it cost)

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. One thing is certain, if you get a bad vibe from one of these

trial balloon deals there is a 100% chance that it's going to turn out worse than you could have ever imagined. I would guess that there will be 250,000+ in Iraq by this time next year with more after that.

[JohnnyLib2]

4. Troubling post. Recommended. My first thought

was of the Wall (RVN), how it starts with a few names and then goes on and on.

[shadowknows69]

5. Clearing Baghdad of what?

Everybody? The line between simple illegal war and state sponsored genocide is becoming pretty thin.

[bananas]

6. "At least 30K Army and Marines per year for the next two years"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2932890&mesg_id=2937457

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. Why aren't more details being discussed?

Things that I never hear talked about whenever a "surge" of troops, usually estimated to be in the tens of thousands at least, is discussed are, from where are we getting all of these extra troops and even if we do actually have the numbers, how is this going to affect our military's preparedness and ability to handle any other crises that might occur during what would appear to be essentially a "re-invasion" of Iraq. The lack of discussion about these issues (at least from the news coverage that I have observed) is very discomforting. Given what we all have learned about Bush and his syncophants in his administration, I fear that they will once again fail to think things through and even more troops and Iraqi civilians will be needlessly slaughtered :-(