In 2002 the President pulled troops away from the hunt for Osama bin Laden, which at the time still had some chance of success, in order to support preparations for Iraq. At the time it seemed to illustrate perfectly howfor this administration, in many ways 9/11 changed nothing. Al Qaeda remained an afterthought and the president’s circle remained focused on their longtime bugbear, Iraq.
The reasons for shortchanging the Afghan war were never entirely obvious. Afghanistan has more land and an 18% larger population than Iraq. Afghan-based groups are directly responsible for those attacks that the President waves, his personal bloody shirt, when he wants to justify everything from security spending to tax cuts to completely unrelated military action. By most accounts we have a decent chance of leaving the Afghan war a success. Yet the American presence there is practically an afterthought. Now, via Kevin Drum, the commitment to Afghanistan will move down one more peg:
According to Army Brig. Gen. Anthony J. Tata and other senior U.S. commanders here, that will happen just as the Taliban is expected to unleash a major campaign to cut the vital road between Kabul and Kandahar. The official said the Taliban intend to seize Kandahar, Afghanistan’s second-largest city and the place where the group was organized in the 1990s.
[…] “It is bleak,” said Col. Chris Haas, commander of the Joint Special Operations Task Force in Afghanistan.
“The gains we have made over the past few years are mostly gone,” said a bearded Special Operations officer, fresh in from advising Afghan army units in battle with 600 to 700 well-equipped Taliban fighters.
Conway said U.S. commanders understand that the Afghan war is an “economy of force” operation, a military term for a mission that is given minimal resources because it is a secondary priority, in this case behind Iraq.
Nevertheless, Conway said, he favored dispatching a Marine battalion [to Afghanistan], a decision that must be approved by the new defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, and by the president.
“It has to be made pretty soon,” [Gen. James T. Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps] said. “We can’t jerk the troops around and say, ‘Hey, oh, by the way, you’re going to Afghanistan in February.'”
In my view it would be helpful for the Democrats to clarify their position on Iraq a bit further. To wit, out of two ongoing wars America has the resources to win one. The catch is that we don’t get to choose which. To throw useless resources into the war that we have already lost, and in so doing lose both, is madness.
***Update***
Some folks still think that the Iraq war will end well. I’m sure that there are good arguments to be made for that, but so far I simply haven’t heard them. The same indigenous forces on whom we increasingly depend are themselves part and parcel of the sectarian war. The idea of ‘rooting out’ the same people alongside whom we’re fighting is schizophrenic at best.
We can stay as long as we like, or as long as our military can sustain it, but staying is not the same thing as winning. Winning is what would have happened if someone like Shinseki had gone in with competent planning and the troop levelsthat Paul Wolfowitz insisted he was an idiot to ask for (plus other caveats which together push the idea into alternative-universe territory). Like most I think that Lt. Gen. Petraeus is among the best possible choice to replace Casey. I have no doubt that Petraeus gives us our best chance of turning the conflict around. However, and I would love to be wrong about this, I think that he arrived three years too late.
mrmobi
Afghanistan is so yesterday. When do we get to bomb Iran?
The Democrats only way to clarify their position is to agree to bomb whomever Mr. McFlightsuit says is bad.
You guys are all “cut-and-runners.”
Jake
Yep and the President should have to give a complete and satisfactory answer as to why this is the case before they get one damn army boot for their New Way Forward in Iraq. They’ve already sent the Eisenhower to Somalia to drop bombs on suspected A-Q members there. And what the fuck happened to not withdrawing from Iraq lest it encourage the terrorists?
Does someone in Afghanistan have embarrassing pictures of Cheney or does the Administration have a stake in making sure the bumper crop of opium poppies isn’t damaged?
Christ, what a cluster of fucks.
Zifnab
I’m reminded of an old saying regarding land wars in Asia. And another one about two-front wars in Europe, that could probably be applied here.
capelza
Afghanistan. Aside from the usless carnage, mayhem and all the other goodies that Iraq has brought our (and the Iraqi’s) way…the simple fact that this fucking president and his fellow whackaloons have put Afghanistan on the back burner infuriates me..I mean blood in the eyeballs infuriates me.
ThymeZone
Darrell will soon be here to do his patented Harangue Number 127a:
You supported the Afghanistan war? Then you are scum for criticising the Iraq war!
If history is any guide, he’ll consume 100 or more posts on that “point” alone.
Redhawk
When these new troops are able to go in, take out many the weapons the terrorists have been using, confiscate/destroy the bombs and bomb-making material, much of the urban areas can be pacified. However, it will take al-Maliki to call on the militias to stop or suspend their violence.
Iraq can be won, but only if Iraqi leaders will allow/tolerate Sunnis in power, too. Short of that, there may be little way to stem the secterian killings.
Zifnab
Jake
Only if we let him/her/it.
mrmobi
I believe that would take 200,000 more troops, not 30,000. Sadly, Iraq is lost, IMHO. It didn’t have to be, but it doesn’t pay to willfully ignore the best and the brightest minds you have because you don’t like their conception of reality.
Winning, were it possible, would not change much in the war on terror, as it is called. Our strategy is fundamentally flawed, and our leaders are incompetent at best.
Over at Informed Comment, there’s this:
Sound to me like we (the US) are an obstacle to progress.
I’m ashamed to say that I supported this invasion, but no more. There is no point to more American deaths if, as administration sources have said, this surge is a “political” move. Play chess with chess pieces, not live soldiers, please.
TenguPhule
Yeah, *over* *their* *dead* *bodies*.
The Iraqis are not going to give up their weapons when they have to worry about their neighbors coming in the night to drill holes in their skulls. US forces have already proven that they can’t do shit about it.
There are no Ponies in Iraq. Only an unending load of manure being spread by the Darrells.
TenguPhule
Redhawk
Under what guise/pretense do you just throw this number out? Please don’t quote Shenseki–that was a pre-invasion number. It’s unfair to so quickly dismiss the effect of 20 thousand additional forces before seeing what effect they may have, and comical to see you attempt to belittle this move by claiming we instead need (fill in a number ridiculously larger than what President Bush wants), even though you have no military basis for those said troop levels.
Jake
OK, go to the nearest ER in an urban area on a Friday night and follow the doctors as they deal with gunshot and car accident victims. This will give you some inkling of what “Seeing what effect they have,” looks like.
TenguPhule
Shorter Redhawk: I don’t do logic so well.
Shinseki’s numbers were based on an Iraq *before* the violence got out of control between the different ethnic groups. It was a *preventive* measure.
Now that Iraq is headed to hell in a handbasket, the numbers needed have only gone UP.
So take your ‘no military basis’ *BULLSHIT* back where it belongs.
20,000 more isn’t going to do jack shit, and if you were honest you could admit that.
Redhawk
Please link me to where this is been proven/demonstrated. I bet you cannot. Instead, generals have LONG said that U.S. Forces are considered the irritant, or instigator, of much of the gunfights, IEDs, and RPGs.
Therefore, this number represents a force increase large enough to help clean out the weapons caches and provide the Sunnis some modicum of protection (necessary to entice them to stop blowing up Shites), while not further angering the Iraqi populace with their presence.
And yes, this is all my opinion, and it’s an honest one. Don’t tell me 20 thousand forces cannot “do jack shit” when you have no basis by which to back that invective.
Eural
And why not? As it turns out we have learned that all of the pre-invasion/pre-Rumsfeld planning was quite a bit more on target than the plans we actually went in with. The President contintues to support a failing policy prepared by his “people” who have proven repeatedly incompetent. If anything we should be looking at the Shenseki numbers (and the force ratios calculated by our own military on what it would take to pacify Iraq) but that would require George W. to stand up and ask for an additional troop increase in the hundreds of thousands. And he doesn’t want to win this war – he just wants to cover his ass long enough to lay the blame on the next president and the Democratic congress.
BTW – The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Collin Powell and Generals Casey and Abizaid all oppose the low-ball number Bush is apparently planning to use. I think they do have a basis for their opinion. What’s yours? Oh, that’s right – “lets just see what effect they will have.” So when are you signing up to help out – or is someone else’s son in a bodybag good enough for you?
TenguPhule
In the face of your opinion in the face of all logic I can only say:
Because you make no sense.
But I will tell you that because it is true and you are an idiot or insane if you believe otherwise.
An honest attempt to change things would involve hundreds of thousands of troops, not a piddly photo op level.
It would still be an attempt doomed to failure, but at least it would be honest.
The war is already lost, at this point Bush and those who still support him are only arguing over how many more they wants to get killed there.
Redhawk
Because after you’ve successfully pissed off much of the Iraqi citizens with your heavy-handed techniques (Abu Ghraib, Haditha), 200,000 more soliders looks like a completely new invasion; one they will not accept.
A smaller force (see my post above) large enough to offer some protection and policing duties but not large enough to give the illusion of a whole new invasion is what President Bush is advocating. I’m not saying it’s guaranteed to work; only that to dismiss it so callously just demonstrates your reflex to slam anything short of complete withdrawl.
TenguPhule
Large enough to do *nothing* that will change anything. We’ve seen what happened when the military tried to concentrate and ‘clean out’ the capital of Iraq, it *FAILED*.
20,000 more is only good for X number more dead and wounded.
Face
I smell a strawman argument here. Nobody is calling for complete withdrawl (yet), but many of us doubt the effectiveness of more grunts. The question is…if they’re found to be ineffective, will Chimpy McLegacytoast be willing to then remove them?
Faux News
Please link to me where it has been proven that the Earth revolves around the sun.
TenguPhule
http://muse.tau.ac.il/museum/galileo/heliocentric.html
Enjoy. :P
Redhawk
Ah, the last refuge of the “Bush sucks” crowd is hyperbole and ludicrousness. As this has nothing whatsoever to do with the post, I’ll ignore it. I’m quite sure Google could help you, though.
This is why we don’t need 200,000 more Troops…via the Post.
Agree or not whether this may work, but it surely wouldn’t require another hundred thousand Forces or so.
Zifnab
Fixed.
Jonathan
If that is the case, then more troops equals more violence, whether it’s 20k or 200k.
Frankly, as a former Marine and a sometime student of military history, I think it would take on the order of 750k to 1m troops to really pacify Iraq right now.
Since it takes, at absolute minimum, a year to train a soldier or Marine, we have no chance of doing much more than we are doing right now.
20k troops is just giving more targets for the resistance to shoot at.
Petraeus’ plan basically is to put the US forces out among the civilians in foot patrols, day and night. Expect casualties to skyrocket.
As for training the Iraqi military, you might want to look at Why Arabs Lose Wars
Jonathan
I don’t think anyone on the left supports or would have supported the tactics at Abu Ghraib or Haditha.
Those were strictly Republican tactics.
Gitmoize means to use harsh interrogation techniques.
A nicer word for torture.
Do you think General Miller was sent to Iraq by Democrats?
Redhawk
This simply is not the case! Case in point: in Madison, years ago, they had riots every (or at least almost every) Holloween. To try and prevent these, they brought in huge numbers of riot troops, decked out in riot gear and looking menacing and itching for a fight. The unexpected result was WORSE violence and rioting.
The year after, instead, they had only a slight increase in cops, and made many of them civilian-clothed. Absent “official” uniforms to rile them up, the partiers no longer rioted.
Too many troops (cops) leads to too much bad blood amongst the populace, and thus further violence. But a slight increase–enough to get the work done without spooking the citizens–is what this surge is hoping to accomplish.
mrmobi
I was, in fact, thinking of General Shinseki when I used that number, because it would have approximated the numbers he recommended so that there would be adequate forces after the fall of Baghdad to keep the peace.
But, as it turns out, his excellent recommendation was ignored, and he was put out to pasture for his insolence. Other generals quickly learned from this experience, and remembered to pipe down when the delusional CIC got some new strategery in his head.
Speaking of ridiculously larger numbers… how about that Iraq war cost estimate that was the subject of so much administration disdain when experts said it would cost just 100 billion dollars. That has worked out well, eh?
Just keep beating those war drums, Redhawk. Just ignore the fact that this entire fiasco is based on trumped-up intelligence, wishful thinking and just old-fashioned lies.
How many more have to die to try to preserve the President’s legacy? How many more have to die because people like you are pissing yourselves worrying about “terrorism?”
If you really think the mission is “winnable” you should join up. Your country needs you to preserve “victory,” whatever that is.
Zifnab
We’ve been playing the “Double down. Ok, just one more hand” game for over three years. Since we put boots on the ground the situation in Iraq has deteriorated steadily and consistantly on a quarterly basis.
People are tired of watching our soldiers die when the Iraq Debacle continues its downward spiral. And while our good men and women die, we are almost literally shitting cash. How much money do you really want to spend to see Iraq return to even ’04 levels of insurgency? Half a trillian dollars? A trillian? Two trillian? Is this what I go to work and pay taxes for? Is this why I shouldn’t ever expect to see a Social Security check or a Medicare prescription when I retire? Because we need to give it “one more try”?
9/11 is happening on a daily basis over there because we won’t leave. And Bush is just adding grease to the fire when he sends in his half-assed bandaid brigade to “fix” things.
Redhawk
I didn’t mean “on the left” by the use of “your” and “you’ve”. I meant our government. Abstract personal pronoun use on my part.
Brian
That’s ’cause everything short of complete withdrawal is worthless.
What will 9,000 soliders actually on the ground be able to accomplish? Baghdad is what, a city of 9 million people? And, you’ve got entire provinces lost to the Sunni revolt. What will these 9,000 foot soldiers ccomplish?
Bush isn’t suggesting 20,000 new troops because he is suddenly politically aware. It’s because he knows that there is no source for even the 20,000 new troops. Your 200,000 this year is 100% mythological. Without a draft and a years long ramp up and training, where are you getting such a number. So no, this “surge” is not smart strategy, but just (still unrealistic) what he can propose.
TenguPhule
I love it, you’ve truly plumbed the depths of the absurd to the point of true comedy.
A mystery quote by the Post (New York, Washington, Pittsburgh?) without a trackback, for the *worst* possible idea, attacking Sadr in his base of operations. With the premise of using Iraq forces to ‘lead the way’.
Truly Darrell has found a true soulmate today.
Jake
It is stupid to talk about 200K because we don’t got ’em. I’m not sure we have 20K. The military has stated it could have 9K ready in a reasonable amount of time (late this year?) Even if we assume that 9K is exclusively combat soldiers (not 9K before the 1:4/1:3 support math), will that do the trick?
And if foreign forces and crap like Abu Gharib are the irritant (I do agree on this point), won’t the knowledge that more of them are on the way just make people angrier?
And where the hell will they get their equipment? Oh well, I guess we just have to wait and see what happens. Popcorn anyone?
TenguPhule
This *escalation* is going to lead to more dead bodies and no other result. You’re trying to compare apples and oranges, the Iraqis are not concerned about US troops anymore so much as they are with their neighbors killing them. US troops are a mutual enemy to both sides, but only to be shot at or blown up. They’ve already decided they don’t like us anymore, and 20,000 or 200,000 isn’t going to change their minds.
Our soldiers are about as effective as cops in Iraq as the regulart cops are…which is to say, worthless in that capacity.
Jonathan
I forgot to mention in my last post:
Take a look at any vociferously righty site and you will see that they vehemently support the Marines who allegedly slaughtered civilians in Haditha.
Little Green Footballs or Free Republic would be good choices.
Redhawk
First:
I’m not here to defend the President Bush on his math. I think Halliburton et al. has stolen a boatload of cash and hasn’t done what they were paid to do. However, that is old news, and has little to do with troop levels. I do believe, if we can invest just a fraction more to make the already hugely expensive war successful…well…it’s like building a house but suddenly balking at the cost of the roof. Suddenly won’t pay for the roof? What the point of building the house?
Second:
Or he’s bringing in experienced firefighters who know how to significantly tamp down (notice I didn’t say completely extinguish) this “fire” to which you allude.
mrmobi
I suspect that Bush is going to get his “surge.” So, Redhawk, lets check back in another six Friedman units and X American casualties and see how all that has turned out.
I assume we’ll see you in here defending the administration when the number of casualties spikes dramatically?
Jonathan
It ain’t my government, I didn’t vote for Bush or the Republican Congress which has been in charge.
You didn’t answer my question as to who sent General Miller to “Gitmoize” Abu Ghraib.
Once again, was it the Democrats?
ThymeZone
It’s a nonsensical argument and it’s a waste of time to try to sell that snake oil here.
If a mere 20k troops would have turned this around, then WHY THE FUCK weren’t they sent in two years ago?
By waiting until now to come up with such a silly-assed “plan’ they’ve lost every shred of credibility.
They “built a house” and watched it get ruined for three years before deciding to invest in a new roof?
Fine, then THEY’RE FIRED. Get these stupid assholes outta there and bring in somebody who knows what the hell they’re doing.
Oh, now after the cover of a rubber-stamp congress is gone, they want to talk about a new plan? Too late.
Jonathan
Hmm.. New York City has 37k police officers and is roughly the same size and population as Baghdad.
How many cops do you think it would take to police NYC if there was an armed insurrection there?
TenguPhule
Shorter Redhawk: Even though we haven’t found the pony and there are no signs of ponies, if you just clap a little louder I’m sure a pony will appear!
Shorter Redhawk II: Oil Fires need to be doused with water!
Redhawk
I have no idea, but I’ll guess it was Rumsfeld. What’s the point? Did Abu Ghraib get out of hand? Yes. Can you blame the General Miller (and I’m guessing, by your inflection, the Republicans) for it? No, not officially. Aside from former General Karpinski, no other General was blamed. Insert conspiracy theory here??
And to say “it ain’t my government”, being that you’re probably an American citizen, is just foolish.
Jake
Redhawk
Rumsfeld didn’t want them. Being that he was the main planner, he was woefully mistaken in not bringing in more troops much earlier. President Bush is trying to rectify that problem as soon as possible. Is it too late? Maybe, but to crucify his attempt at pacification before they’re even allowed to go forth is both unfair and unwise.
Jonathan
If this is the case, then why didn’t they bring in the experienced fire fighters sometimes in, oh say, the last three years?
We’ve already been at this longer than the time from Pearl Harbor to VJ day and it’s getting worse, not better.
We beat the combined might of the Wermacht, Luftwaffe, Kreigsmarine, Imperial Japanese Army, Imperial Japanese Air Force and the Imperial Japanese Navy in less time that it is taking to subdue Baghdad. Why is this?
Not to mention that we were caught flat footed at Pearl Harbor and yet we chose this war.
TenguPhule
That pony won’t fly.
Commander in *Chief*, remember?
TenguPhule
If we had a time machine I’d shuck Bush, Rumsfield and Cheny onto the German warstaff in WW II. They’d all be speaking French in the country by the end of the war.
Jonathan
You have no idea how the military works, do you?
The lower ranks _always_ take the rap for the upper ranks.
Like I said, General Miller was brought in specifically to oversee harsh interrogation tactics (aka torture) at Abu Ghraib.
I guess you’ve never heard of the WPCC, the West Point Protection Club?
Redhawk
If you think President Bush would act militarily in a fashion completely at odds with his good friend and SecDef Rumsfeld, you obviously haven’t been paying attention. President Bush followed the advice (good and/or bad) of Rumsfeld religiously, and to even attempt to suggest he should have or would have changed troop levels at odds with what those more knowledgeable about military issues wanted is fantasy.
Shorter: Rumsfeld’s to blame for the lack of troops, but that being recognized, President Bush is changing that as fast as possible. Should I assume that your reluctance to increase levels is a indirect blessing on Rumsfeld’s troop numbers? Make up your damn minds.
Jonathan
Here is Rumsfelds hubris exposed for for all to see.
I think this speaks for itself.
ThymeZone
I’m crucifying his miserable leadership and management of the situation for lo these many years. This is just another example.
Rumsfeld couldn’t get this right? Then why was Bush defending him as if he walked on water … right up until he lost the election?
Sorry, these idiots have lost the right to ask for patience and forbearance. They’re FIRED. Bush is FIRED. He obviously can’t do this job. He got the WMDs wrong. He got the post-invasion management wrong. He got everything wrong. He said he had a new plan 15 months ago. Then he had another one ten months ago. Those didn’t work. He tried surges before, no help.
Put a hook around this guy’s neck and get him outta there. Apparently he can’t handle this job.
TenguPhule
So his ‘I’m listening to the Generals on the ground’ meme is confirmed as another lie from his mouth, then?
You can’t pass the buck here, the Commander in Chief holds ultimate responsibility in the chain of command.
Factoring in the casualties already taken, you are only going slightly above Rumsfield’s ORIGINAL troop numbers, oh ye of poor math skills. Since you disapprove of them then, why do you approve of them now? Make up your damn mind.
Jonathan
Rumsfeld has only a bachelors degree and retired from the Reserves as a Captain, hardly someone trained in strategy.
Most four star Generals have a doctorate.
Tom in Texas
And when others suggested Rumsfeld should go, we were told the Bush is the decider and he decides what is best. Rummy wasn’t the decider, by Bush’s own words.
Redhawk
A larger force was necessary to militarily fight the Revolutionary Guard, etc in the beginning. To actually fight Saddam’s loyal troops. Sans those battles, the troops were to act as police officers, by and large. Rumsfeld failed to foresee the vital and necessary role that personal security plays in pacifying a populace, and thus never asked for more troops (as there was nothing left–early on–to shoot at). He did not foresee the U.S.’s role in providing such required security.
There can be no effective gov’t without personal security. There can be no personal security without unbiased “policemen” (read: U.S., not militia-based, Forces). And there simply isn’t enough at present to do the job. Not yet, at least.
Mike
Fixed
jg
I always thought the republican ‘Great Man’ syndrome was bunk but it clearly isn’t. No matter who they put in charge that person is a ‘Great Man’ and can do no wrong. Whatever happens its the fault of anyone but the ‘Great Man’.
That’s all this surge is about.
Plus we’ve always been at war with Persia.
Mike
This is a load of shit. There were people to shoot at. LOOTERS. When Rummy let it run wild (It’s messy), that was really the beginning of the end for any hope we had to “win”. Abu Ghraib sealed the deal. You morons have no idea that the sexual mistreatment was actually MUCH worse than had we just killed them all.
Jonathan
From my link above:
Read the bolded part at least, eh?
Redhawk
Please. This has nothing to do with day-to-day military operations. Rumsfeld was most assuredly the decider on troop levels, force deployment, troop movements, and general strategy. If anything, President Bush recognized his lack of experience in such things and thus put these men operationally (although not technically) in charge.
It wasn’t until the loss of Rumsfeld did President Bush realize he needs to increase Force levels. It’s ridiculous that many of you refuse to even give it a chance.
Krista
Terrible analogy, by the way. The “house” that is the Iraq war has been built out of chicken wire, bubblegum and wishes right from the foundation up. You could slap the nicest roof EVER on that thing, and it’ll still be a piece of crap. The American people have been taking their sweet goddamn time firing the general contractor on this job, but I think they’ve finally reached the end of their rope.
TenguPhule
And there still won’t be enough with 20,000 more. You’re back where you started, but with more enemies then ever before.
Jonathan
Rumsfeld was being told by his Generals that planning was needed for the occupation, he threatened to fire anyone who even mentioned it to him again.
Rumsfeld was willfully ignorant, just like Bush in making the decision to invade Iraq in the first place.
Jake
I see. Rumfilled was exercising some sort of mind control over Bush. Sort of like the prince in The Silver Chair. Now that the spell is broken Bush is at last free to come up with a plan to save the day.
Tell the talking animals, dwarves and dryads to make ready with the victory dinner!
TenguPhule
No, what’s ridiculous is that you’re bending over backwards for Bush, *again*.
Lieberman put your line of thinking best, “What’s the worst that could happen? Another partisan flashpoint.”
jg
That’s the stupidest analogy ever. A politically motivated troop surge is the same as forgetting to design a house with a roof?
Then again maybe you nailed the Bush administration exactly.
Redhawk
I completely disagree. The job is provide security to the Iraqi people, b/c with security comes a stable gov’t, which will then bring about a semblance of control and normalcy. One must fix the most serious problem first–keeping the citizens safe. 20K Troops ought be enough to help them without making them feel occupied all over again.
As for this:
I agree, and will not defend Rumsfeld. Additional troops should have been added long ago, and he resisted. He’s at fault in this mess more than anyone else.
TenguPhule
Fixed.
Jonathan
But Cheney just recently called Rummy “the bestest Secretary of Defense ever”.
What was that all about?
Not to mention that Rummy was allowed to stay on, just so he could pass Robert McNamara as longest serving SecDef ever.
TenguPhule
The numbers do not match the rhetoric. 20,000 additional provides no more security then the *last* concentration they tried. You have enough to occupy *one* major city, but not enough to control it.
And where the troops concentrate, the Iraqi fighters tend to simply leave and move on to where there’s a weaker dispersion of troops. And as soon as the troops leave, they’re back.
It’s a fool’s game and only a fool would continue to play it.
Jonathan
Have we gotten good value for our money in Iraq?
Let’s look at the numbers.
We have spent very roughly $500,000,000,000
We have killed very roughly 500,000 Iraqis (including many innocent civilians).
$500,000,000,000 / 500,000 = $1,000,000
That’s one million dollars per dead Iraqi.
One million dollars.
Per dead Iraqi.
Just for the sake of argument let’s assume that one in ten Iraqis we have killed is a “bad guy”, that means 50,000 “bad guys”.
That’s ten million dollars per “bad guy”.
Ten million dollars.
Per “bad guy”.
So we have spent somewhere between one million and ten million dollars per “bad guy” killed.
Does anyone think we can continue this sort of expenditure forever?
Does anyone think this is good value for our hard earned cash?
Consider this also, for every innocent Iraqi we kill, we generate an unknown number more “bad guys” who decide to pick up arms against us or otherwise join the “resistance”.
If your wife, child, brother, sister, father, mother or other family member were killed and there was no legal recourse, what would you do?
Keep in mind that Iraqis are a tribal people where “honor” is very important, even more important than it is to us.
Now do you see what we are facing?
Jonathan
In my last post I showed how we have spent approximately one million dollars for each dead Iraqi.
Here’s how it relates to the individual American.
In 1999 the per capita income of the USA was $21,587.
Assume the average American works for fifty years over the course of his or her lifetime.
$21,587 X 50 years = $1,079,350
Basically, for every Iraqi that has been killed, many of whom were innocent civilians, an average American’s entire lifetime gross income has been spent.
It’s actually worse than that. Only about one third of the Iraqis that have been killed since the invasion have been killed by coalition forces (almost entirely US and a few UK).
So in actual reality, for every Iraqi that the US forces have directly killed, three Americans have paid their entire lifetime income for that death.
Given the fact that not all Iraqis that have been killed directly by US forces have been “bad guys” probably somewhere around four American’s entire lifetime earnings have been spent per “bad guy” killed.
Keep in mind, this isn’t the taxes that Americans will pay over a lifetime, it’s the entire gross income. An American’s entire life work goes to kill one fourth of an Iraqi “bad guy”.
Now these are just back of the envelope (BOTE) calculations, but they certainly get us into the ball park.
So, what do you think?
Jonathan
One more point:
If you disagree with the 500k dead Iraqis figure and claim it is considerably smaller, then the price per dead Iraqi soars and the price per “bad guy” also soars.
jg
Also we aren’t teh only ones killing people (everyone forgets Poland) so the price is higher still.
Jake
Yeah guys. Leave poor Bush alone. It was Rummy’s idea to cook up that story about big throbbing piles of WMD in the desert, scale back on the hunt for Osama bin Laden (who?) and rush into Iraq. He did it while Bush was at the ranch. Bush had nothing to do with it. Bush was…taking a nap. Yeah. But now, the C-in-C has come out of his long slumbers and will save the day!
Also, no fair asking how a president who is so weak-willed, careless and clueless that he would let his Sec. of Def. Santorum a war and kill a lot of folks based on a lie could suddenly grow the brains and balls to fix the mess the Wicked Witch of the Pentagon created when no one was looking. Just be ready to cheer when the President unveils his masterpiece.
Eural
Wow, here’s some feedback (since everyone is asking!):
1) Although I totally disagree with Redhawk here’s a shoutout to him for sticking in here and giving it and taking it like a real man (no gayness intended).
2) I’ve been reading and posting here for a couple of years and what first attracted me to the site was the fact that though it was a conservative blog the tone was not overly harsh to those few of us who were pissed at the Bush administration. Holy crap – the political shift reflected in just this thread alone is amazing. Bush has gone from an idolized do-gooder of mild/exalted esteem to complete and utter shit in just two years.
3) Jonathan: your math – although very fascinating – just depresses the hell out of me. Please make it go away.
HyperIon
so the mostly Shiite Iraqi army is going to subdue the mostly Shiite militias in Sadr City.
how can this possibly work?
how can anyone write such crap? The Post can be very annoying sometimes.
Blue Shark
You write:
“Bush has gone from an idolized do-gooder of mild/exalted esteem to complete and utter shit in just two years”
…Nah… he has always been a total loser. It is just the strength of the kool-aid supplied by the Corporate Media of America has diminished substantially.
ThymeZone
A slightly different interpretation.
TenguPhule
If you drink enough booze, anything seems possible.
Perry Como
And that’s a fundamental mistake. Soldiers are not police officers. They aren’t trained to be police officers. They are trained to be soldiers. They are trained to win wars. Stop trying to force soldiers to do something they are not trained for. If you want to POLICE the Iraqi population, then send police.
ThymeZone
Redhawk is actually Joe Lieberman. Joe is trying out anonymous blogging as a hobby. He wants to write political posts badly.
He wants this very badly. Very, very badly.
vetiver
It wasn’t until the loss of Rumsfeld did President Bush realize he needs to increase Force levels.
Yeah, it’d be nice to think that the Force was with us, wouldn’t it? Sadly, I don’t think Yoda would even bother to piss on us at this point.
Redhawk, do you even realize what you’re saying? According to you, the president spent 46 months fulfilling his duties as wartime CINC by blindly signing off on the reports and recommendations of his SecDef, until said SecDef was “lost” (i.e., fired) under tragic circumstances (i.e., a resounding electoral thumpin’) brought about by unforeseen and unforeseeable circumstances (i.e., despite Turdblossom’s numerology, the “terra, terra, terra” spell stopped working because millions of Americans recognized that the administration’s version of what was happening in Iraq was bullshit — a fact which was, again according to you, too highly classified, or complicated, or something, to pass on to said wartime CINC).
Mind you, I’m not arguing. I’m just surprised that you think this is any kind of endorsement for Bush’s leadership, or judgment, or sentience.
Eural
Now that was the funniest thing I’ve read all day!
CaseyL
Redhawk, what do you think those additional 9,000 troops are going to do?
Specifics, please.
Redhawk
I expect that the 20,000 troops added to the mix will be able to better help pacify and protect the Sunni minority. I don’t think the Shite-led militias will be as willing to attack and assasinate the Sunni if they must go through the U.S. Forces. Given a respite in attack and counter-attacks (revenge killings), I’m hoping the lull will allow the Iraqi government a chance to gel and find some common ground. This new bipartisianship of the Iraqi parliment would hopefully be able to restore some security.
We need not protect the Sunnis forever; rather, long enough to give their gov’t a chance to break the militias, restore a judicial system, and be granted some credibility. As I’ve said before, if al-Maliki chooses not to disband his militias, then this could be perhaps a fool’s errand.
jake
Heh. I was thinking McCain. Or given the attempts to shift the blame to Rumsfeld, Bush, via an aide.
croatoan
We’ve already had 20,000 more troops. We have about 140,000 troops in Iraq now, and we had 160,000 in December 2005.
ThymeZone
Redhawk, are you Birdzilla?
Jonathan
Redhawk:
Do you expect that to be 20k trigger pullers or are there going to be the normal complement of REMFs with them?
jake
OT: Are we at war with Somalia or just dropping bombs on parts of it?
Or maybe this is a “police action.” Or perhaps an “intervention.” Maybe it’s just another day in TWAT.
Jonathan
Redhawk:
Do you disagree with the numbers I posted above and if not, what do you think of them?
demimondian
Lieberman already does a bunch of things badly. I don’t see why he shouldn’t want to post badly, too.
Jonathan
It ain’t even really math, it’s simple freakin’ arithmetic. What depresses the hell out of me is that so many Americans can’t even do this level of simple arithmetic to reach the conclusion that we are getting well and truly screwed.
I wish it would go away too. But, there it is.
TomS
Alright, I guess I’ll pipe in here. After spending about a year or so of my life in that part world (and scheduled to leave again in a couple of months), I’ll tell you why I don’t think “victory” (at least by any definition I’ve heard) is a likely outcome.
1. To a large portion of the Iraqi population, we are viewed as occupier. The aggressive tactics we have to use to protect ourselves, although necessary, do not exactly endear us to the locals. And as for occupations in general, check out your history books and tell me how that usually turns out.
2. As misguided as they may be, the Iraqis blame us for eeeevrything. No matter what good we manage to do, the Iraqis don’t give us any credit for it. Because we are viewed as occupiers, everything we do is viewed with suspicion. And mistakes, which will always happen in war, are magnified by these perceptions.
3. Because the insurgency is mostly local, you really can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys. You can surge all you want because when we turn up the heat, the bad guys just melt back in to the population and disappear. They have a lot of patience and believe me, they won’t just forget. They have an extreamly long “Cultural Memory”. They’re still pissed about the Crusades.
4. Right now we are fighting almost the entire middle east by proxy. The Persians (mostly Iran) support the Shia majority and the Arabs (and just about everyone else)support the Sunni minority. Our Middle-eastern cultural ignorance is, once more, really biting us is the ass.
5. And lastly, what is the insurgent’s definition of “victory”? It’s to get us out of Iraq. So unless we plan on staying in Iraq forever, which would seem to validate the Insurgent’s claims of U.S. imperialism and piss off the entire region, then we will have to leave one day. So sooner or later, the insurgents win.
NOTE: Sorry in advance for spelling or grammatical errors.
Pennypacker
My first time at this site, and I have to say it’s a livelier conversation than I expected.
I’m going to give a second thumbs-up to Redhawk — he and I would agree on absolutely nothing (he would be horrified by my socialism, I’m sure), but I find him a refreshing, respectful challenger. Well done!
ThymeZone
Yes, but they weren’t surging. They were just there.
This is Bush’s third New Plan for Vittry In A Rock in just 14 months.
Thus, the Surge. These new troops will Surge into A Rock and Get The Job Done.
ConservativelyLiberal
In a Tom Clancy book I read some time ago, he had a character say that it is well known that leaders who have never served in the military are always more likely to send troops somewhere than a leader who has been in the military and to war. The discussion was between US military and intelligence people regarding the leader of another nation. Hmmmm….
Gentleman, we have entered the realm of science fiction being fact.
Regarding Bush listening to Rummy and not questioning his advice? Gee, and the Repugs were in all of a tizzy when it was mentioned that Hillary would run the nation through Bill Clinton. So now we have a president who can’t think for himself. I guess that could be called progress by some.
If our imperial leader had an ounce of brains, he would have listened to our military men. Same with Rummy. What the hell is all of that experience in the Pentagon there for anyway? For window dressing? If this is the case, we could have saved a bundle getting rid of all of our military experts at the Pentagon. Just staff it with people who do what they are told.
My BS detector is howling. Putting 20,000 more targets on the ground in Iraq is not going to do squat. Don’t want to send in more as the Iraqi people will think it is an invasion?! What the hell are we doing there, handing out flowers and candy?!!!
There is a right way and a wrong way to to do any task. Bush blew it in dismissing General Shinseki’s statements in the politically expedient way that he did. Shinseki was proven right, in spades. The military was right, the civilians were wrong. Again.
And that is what they are, civilians. Being President may make you the commander in chief, but it will never make you a military man if you were not one already. Same with Sec. Def., or any other position in government. You want to complain about civilians not understanding and their meddling in war and military matters? What the hell do you think has been going on?!
We went into Iraq when we should not have, and we went in without sufficent tools and boots on the ground. Heck, the military will not even deploy the new RPG defense systems for tanks that the Israeli’s are installing on 100 of their tanks right now! We have had people here at home raising money to buy bulletproof vests to send to Iraq. We had to uparmour vehicles while our people drove around in them getting killed.
Sure, send in a few more targets. What the heck, what is wrong with almost a half a trillion dollars, a few thousand military lives gone and over 20,000 maimed and injured? To say nothing of the ‘enemy’ and even higher ‘collateral damage’ (BTW, they are real people in case anyone forgot) losses. That is nothing! More, I want more blood!
This country is sick. By the way, anyone heard from Osama lately? Osama who, you ask? Well, sit down and let me tell you a bit about historical events in America. There was this attack, on September 11, 2001 and…
spluffer
Not to mention the fact that it’s all paid for with supplemental spending bills, on top of the deficit budgets we’ve been running since 2001.
It’s all on the national credit card.
TenguPhule
So in other words just take the current killings and bombings and just add more US casualties to the mix. ‘Pacification’ is the polite term for ‘raid their homes, terrify the women and children and piss off the men’.
As for protection, what do you propose we do, use our troops as 24/7 patrols in every neighborhood? That’s the *only* way you’re going to ‘protect’ them from Shiites coming to drag them away.
Based on what? Their current willingness to go around in US held cities to attack and kill Sunni while wearing the government’s uniforms? Our people CAN’T TELL THEM APART ON THE GROUND and more troops isn’t going to change that. They abduct and execute people in broad daylight just to show that they can, but the majority of the bodies they keep finding are simply taken away and then tortured and killed in a safe house before being dumped elsewhere. Just boots walking around will not protect shit, and our intelligence sources in Iraq are a fucking joke which makes raids more often then not FUBARS involving private Iraqi feuds using US troops as catspaws against each other.
TenguPhule
Shorter Redhawk: We have to protect the Sunni forever.
Right, blame him for not trying to stop the militas with an Iraqi ‘army’ that’s riddled with militia men and enemy guerillas when those same militias are the only thing keeping his own people from tearing him apart for not being able to fullfill the big promises he and the US made when he took power. He was a dead man walking the moment he took power and he’s not willing to make that time even shorter by committing suicide trying to take on Sadr’s forces.
It’s a fool’s game and only fools still want to play.
jake
Edited for reality.
It never ceases to amaze me that to some I am a soldier-hating hippycrat, while the people who get major wood at the thought of sending more soldiers into the land of IEDs (just to see what happens) are considered the bestest Americans ever.
Jonathan
That’s essentially what happened. Rumsferatu ran off anyone who disagreed with him and would speak up about it.
jake
Same shit. Different slogan.
I know I should watch this crap tonight but I don’t know if there’s enough booze in the world to get me through.
Hyperion
thanks for making these points.
they all seem well-reasoned and obvious, no?
yet evidently some still do not accept their reality.
so did you go to Iraq with these ideas?
or did your experience there shape them?
(i almost wrote “or did your experience radicalize you?” which just goes to show the up-is-down nature of this mess. the invasion was radical. what has followed is merely its consequence. up is NOT down. as richard feynman once said “nature cannot be fooled”. gravity cannot be fooled either.)
Redhawk
I will say this much: The Brits had great success in Basra and other southern areas of Iraq by walking the street in a largely “hands-off” manner. Few raids, little heavy-handed tactics. The locals then trusted them, befriended them, and in general, violence escaped them. So this fallacy that additional troops just walking around cannot work has been debunked.
You’re a fool to neglect the absolute requirement that personal security has on the pacification process. They’re less likely to load their weapons and have them at the ready (to shoot U.S. Troops, f.e.) if they know their neighbor is unlikely to barge in and take them hostage (or worse). These additional troops are NECESSARY to affect substantial change in the security aspect of Iraqi lives.
I’m quite sure if the President asked for 200,000 Troops, you’d all find a reason to bitch about it. 500,000? Too many, many of you would opine. 5,000? Not nearly enough, many would cry. The fact is this: if President Bush announces it, you MUST denounce it. Out of hand. Without solid reason. Just because. Reflexive and instinctive dismissal of anything our fine military attempts. Shameful.
HyperIon
i am ashamed of lots of things these days.
but dismissing Bush’s latest idiocy is not even on the list.
so, redhawk, if this new “plan for victory” does not work, will you be ashamed that you argued for it?
or will you just move on to supporting Bush’s next stupid idea?
Jonathan
Bush got rid of those Generals who were against escalation and installed some yes-men.
Keep in mind that Rumsferatu rejected Shinseki’s accurate estimate of troop levels needed to do the job completely out of hand. Bush didn’t interfere then but he is interfering now.
I for one would welcome 500k troops, that might actually accomplish something.
Tim F.
You were doing well until you brought in an ad hominem wrapped in an unsupported composition fallacy. There undoubtedly exist people about whom you are right. Does that include all of the people to whom you are talking? A number of commenters here were until very recently Bush-supporting Republicans. Several are vets. If not all, then which? Lumping everybody together and dismissing them en masse is just lazy argument.
Redhawk
I could not possibly name, being that I could not possibly know each commenter personally, those that support this plan and those that do not. But please point out, Tim, which commenter on this thread besides myself supports this surge? Which one(s) have come to my defense? If you’re counting with fingers, I’m betting you showing a fist.
“you” thus stands for all of the commenters on this thread. All have denounced the plan, nearly all have denounced me personally. You call that an ad hominem if you’d like; I’ll call it an accurate summation of 100+ responses.
Jake
Boo-friggin-hoo. I was wondering when s/he would fall back on “Denouncing the president = denouncing the military.”
The military attempted to tell Bush that his plans won’t work. Did you cry hot tears of rage when he was dismissing them out of hand?
Tim F.
So now opposing the “surge” automatically equates with kneejerk opposition to anything ever proposed by President Bush, &c. Very convincing. In defending the use of a fallacy, try not to compound your problem by making another one.
I won’t apologize for anybody who treated you coarsely. As a personal preference I encourage de-escalation in anonymous verbiage battles, but given our laissez faire comments policy there is only so much I can do, or would want to. Incidentally, I noticed that others have complemented you for, at least until now, keeping a level head and still others have kept the conversation entirely on the level. If I could draw one profound conclusion from all that it would be that people are different. Om.
TenguPhule
Checked Basra lately? The hands off approach is *too* *late* to implement. The only thing that’s been debunked is that 20,000 troops will make any real difference and it’s coming from Bush’s own generals reporting to Congress.
They’re doing it right under US forces noses *NOW*. It’s not the big flashy gunfights you’re thinking about. They just produce their weapons to the victims, hustle them away and kill them at a safehouse before dumping the bodies. It’s been taking place for *months* now, even when they ‘surged* in Baghdad the bodies still kept piling up because they *can’t* hold any neighborhood 24/7 and as soon as they go, the guerillas are back.
No they’re not. Even the generals in charge now admit that 20,000 more isn’t going to solve *anything*.
The fact is, you’re defending Bush’s policies backed up by blind faith and nothing more. There are plenty of solid reasons why his escalation is a bad idea, but you are so quick to dismiss it as ‘Bush hating’ that you keep missing the points. This is more of the same, and I’m sick of seeing the F.U.s being thrown out.
ThymeZone
Bwaaaaaaaahahahaha!
We’d have to know who you were to do that, wouldn’t we?
Heh. Hard to take “personal” phony umbrage when hiding behind an anonymous net handle, eh?
Funniest gag of the day, bar none.
“Stop the personal attacks I say!”
Signed, “X”.
Oh my fucking gawd.
numbskull
Redhawk,
Did I miss a policy that Bush got right? He’s been on the job 6 years and honestly, I don’t see any effective policy promulgation and certainly no competency in execution. Doesn’t it seem perfectly reasonable to dismiss anything else he has to say, especially if we know a priori that he’s blown off expert input (ISG and The Generals, in this case). Is that somehow unreasonable? How many times do you have to burn your hand before you quit putting it on the stove?
Does this make me a Bush hater? Or just someone who can add 2+2?
As for this particular bit of lunacy, he’s already tried this tactic at least twice (concentrating troops to clear out insurgents and hold). Didn’t work. Please quit pretending that this is a new tactic and therefore worthy of “seeing how things work out”. At least recognize that this exact tactic has been tried and has failed.
Possibly YOU can come up for a better use of the troops (remember, until recently, the WH leaks were that Bush was still trying to decide on HOW to use the “surging” troops; I guess he just wanted to escalate without plan since all the experts were telling him it was a bad idea). If so, please send a postcard to the White House with your plan. Yours may be the one they pull out of the hat this afternoon! Please keep it short, though, as The President will have to memorize it for his 9 PM television show.
Jake
Too late. They’re just going to re-run one of his old “Stay the Course” speeches. The magic of computers will allow them to insert a few new catch phrases.
Redhawk
I’m not asking for an apology, nor expecting one. I care not a whit if the anti-President Bush crowd disagrees with me; didactic arguments are useful and instructive.
The fact is, I’m trusting our President to do what it takes to win. As I’ve said a thousand times above, I believe very necessary troop increases were nixed by a stubborn Rumsfeld, and now absent that roadblock, he’s able to do what it takes to provide adequate security to the Sunnis, without adding so many troops that may completely spook the locals.
Apparently, many/all of you disagree. I have no problem with that.
RTO Trainer
False. Not one troop, truck or rifle was transfered between campaigns.
Afghanistan among many other countries. Hence a Global war on Terror (and not a war on al Qaeda, I might add.)
How about developing a position, other than negation, at all? (Reminds me of a Monty Python sketch.)
Nope. We’ll win both if we just don’t quit. What no one wants to face up to is that it takes 20 years to build a democratic government and the security apparatus to defend it. It’s never been done any faster, anywhere, ever.
It’s a generational task. Expecting a result in a scant 4 or 6 years is ludicrous. Some recent examples: Bosnia–Still there 15 years later. Korea– Still ther 50 years later. Germany/Japan– Still there 60 years later. Philippines– Redeployed “over the horizon” 80 years later.
The other side of the coin: Haiti: we return every 3 to 5 years because we never made the full investment.
RTO Trainer
You know. The press keeps telling me how bad it is here in Afghanistan, I just moved from Kandahar up to Kabul, and since I can go out my door and know that they are simply wrong, I’m just not prepared to accept that Iraq is a bad as portrayed either.
TenguPhule
I will call Bullshit on this spoof. The Newspeak is simply off the charts here.
TenguPhule
See Blind Faith, above.
RTO Trainer
…
And? You going to back it up?
TenguPhule
The Green Lantern Path to Victory, isn’t.
It’s not a matter of will, it’s a matter of reality and costs vs. gains.
What you seem unable to face is that 3 years in, things have gone from bad, to worse, to FUBAR. Typically when one builds a working democracy, things gradually *improve* instead of nosediving into civil war.
TenguPhule
There are over three thousand empty pairs of boots saying otherwise.
RTO Trainer
Recommended reading: Inevitable Revolutions by LeFeber. The premise, strongly supported, is that rebellions, revolutions, insurgencies…are most likely to occur in times of otherwise improving conditions.
So, I’d like to see your examples to the contrary.
Anyone care to offer up a metric (TenguPhule?) that would contradict that this has been and is, the most bloodless and most successfull set of military campaigns since the beginning of recorded history?