Let’s take a quick recap through last night’s speech, and then wrap up with what struck me as his one big idea.
First, the things that don’t matter:
* More troops. 20,000 more troops is a drop in the bucket. Unless we also change how our army operates (more on that below) I doubt that insurgents will even notice. The people who will notice, however, are the military managers who are trying to a strained force from collapsing entirely. Plus the poor saps trying to win in Afghanistan.
* A larger military. Fine idea considering our current readiness levels, but it won’t mean much for Iraq. How long will it take to transform policy into boots on the ground? Years, at best. Our time in Iraq won’t last that long, now even less long thanks to added strain from the President’s “surge.”
* Mandates. What are the consequences for Maliki blowing off our demands? As far as I can tell, nothing. The extra troops will go in anyway.
* “Diplomacy.” The only two regional partners who matter are Syria and Iran. As always the President will only talk to them if they agree to give up everything in advance. The best explanation that I have heard for such obvious bad faith involves fears by the administration about having a weak bargaining position vis a vis Iran. We don’t have any leverage, of course, because we removed Iran’s regional competitor, installed an Iran-friendly regime in his place and ground our fighting forces to dust in the process.
That leaves one point which could have an impact. Like Noah Shachtman I think that moving troops out of the insular FOBs and changing the rules of engagement will change life both for us and for the insurgents. Without a doubt this move comes from the Petraeus playbook and in 2003, with sufficient number of men, I think that we would have a chance of a positive result.
Sadly this isn’t 2003. Too much poisoned Euphrates wter has passed under the bridge for embittered Iraqis to give Americans the benefit of the doubt again. The sectarian mobs have had years to equip, train and exchange bloody shirts. Insurgents have years of hard training at our hands and porous borders to endlessly replenish their numbers, which will swell each time our new engagement rules accidentally makes another taxi full of civilians into a statistic. That has nothing to do with malicious intent on the part of our soldiers, it is simply the inevitable result of loosening the rules in a maddeningly complex urban environment. Good people will do bad things by accident and for perfectly understandable reasons, but none of that is visible to the local public. Only the bad things. And then you have idiotic stories like this which have the same war-losing value as a division of insurgents.
Of course the move out of FOBs is only a half-assed implementation of the Petraeus Doctrine . Fred Kaplan recently observed that Baghdad alone would need about twice as many combat troops as we have in all of Iraq. Instead of that America can spare 20,000. There is good reason to think we can’t even spare that. So if America’s best informed counterinsurgency strategist thinks that we have nowhere near the number of men needed to win, what exactly is the point of putting more men in harm’s way? Unless Petraeus’s own manual is comically off-base the change won’t win the war. As near as I can tell it will just put more Americans in convenient AK-47 range.
It helps to recall why American commanders pulled troops into secure FOBs in the first place. Insurgents became very good at picking off unprotected troops, to the point that casualty levels became politically dangerous. Barring a compelling reason to go out (say, an overarching war strategy) it makes sense to keep troops inside and in armored convoys until we can get out of Dodge altogether. So what has changed? The President has moved past reelection and isn’t grooming anybody to replace him, which means that casualties aren’t politically dangerous anymore. Democrats won’t impeach him and it seems vanishingly unlikely that they will cut off the war funds, leaving the President free to do more or less whatever he wants.
Democrats of course have nothing to lose by protesting. The more the public sours on this GOP war the more they stand to win. Obviously the GOP, who did everything possible to own this war when ownership looked like a good thing, has more of a dilemma on its hands. You have to wonder what they plan to do about it.
***Update***
Some extra points:
* Other than moving troops out of the FOBs there really is no there there.
* Now that’s interesting. Instead of pulling the funds, attach so many strings that Bush vetoes the money himself. I hope the President likes that GOP-brand medicine.
Mike
Bush will drag the Republican party down rather than go down with the ship like an honorable captain would. And a lot of Republicans seem to not want to let go of the anchor, which I can’t figure out.
BobJones
They plan, apparently, to start a war with Iran. That’ll solve our problems inside Iraq, right? Its not like the Iranians could possibly retaliate against us by equipping their allies in Iraq with sophisticated weaponry to attack the 140,000 American soldiers no longer protected inside the FOBs, right? And after all, the best way to get Iran and Syria to help us stabalize Iraq is to repeatedly tell them, and show them through our actions, that as soon as Iraq is stable we’ll be attacking them next, right? We aren’t entirely fucked, right?
Zifnab
I’ll say this one thing about the Lieberman DLC Democrats. This is the time when the wheat really gets thinned from the chaff. The Dems who continue to support escalation and new invasion are under extreme pressure from the wanning war supporters to keep stepping deeper into this issue.
I just hope that those Dems neck deep in this quagmire get abandoned in the ’08 elections with the rest of their diehard Republican cohorts. Frankly, I wasn’t too fond of the Big Business wing of the Democratic Party anyway.
Jake
I read about the decision to make US soldiers the “cop on the block,” and thought pretty much what you did. Great idea, three years too late. Rather like sticking a bunch of police in Watts during the Rodney King riots. Or hey, sticking a bunch of soldiers in a neighborhood after another bunch of soldiers have raped a girl and killed everyone in the house.
From the polls I’ve seen, the Iraqi people would really like us to make like Marvin K. Mooney. That Bush’s solution is to stick soldiers right under the noses of people who don’t want them around at all tells you just about everything you need to know about the man. I’d also be interested in the logistics. Will these be normal looking houses with heavier doors and windows or just smaller forts? Will the soldiers be out and about making friends (worked for the Brits) or huddled inside and only going out when something blows up? And of course, have these guys received full an extensive education on local customs, do they speak the damn language, are they well rested, relaxed and alert or tired and jumpy?
Gods, I have a bad feeling about this one.
Eural
We all know what they will do about it.
Right now let us all take an oath that when our grandchildren start arguing about whatever clusterfuck the neo-neo cons get us embroiled in around 2050 and the Rushbot Mark IV starts wailing about how the “damn liberals” lost both Vietnam and Iraq we will knock his lights out.
Paddy O'Shea
If Bush admits mistakes were made, and admits that we could face a terrible defeat in Iraq, and that all of this is his responsibilty, shouldn’t he do the right thing and resign?
How much more disgrace could any world leader admit to?
docg
From Bush’s speech last night:
Perhaps I’m just paranoid, but this looks like a setup to blame the Iraqis when we pull out of Iraq emptyhanded before the 2008 election.
Jake
The new plan: Kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out!
Pb
So far, the “big idea” looks more like “continue to lay the groundwork for war with Iran” to me, i.e., “I’m totally insane, please impeach me!”. And I think The Australian seemed even less charitable (if more subtle) in their reporting:
Step 1: Destabilize the Middle East.
Step 2:
???Sell weapons systems to threatened Middle Eastern nations.Step 3: PROFIT!!
.
Maybe they miss the good old days of the Iran-Iraq war? Perhaps the big problem with Hussein in charge was that he wasn’t fighting with Iran anymore? There’s just no telling with these idiots.
Tsulagi
Last night was the three-point plan for victory. For Bush. And really, isn’t that what really matters?
1. Extend this thing for two more years full bore to be able to hand the sack of shit to the next guy. Be able to blame him for the loss.
2. If Congress bitches and doesn’t go completely ass up, be able to say they obstructed. Be able to blame them for the loss.
3. If Maliki and his government don’t deliver on the promises I said they made, they prevented success. Be able to blame them for the loss.
If any one or combination occurs, in his spoiled brat retarded mind, he gets the win. Now he can go back on vacation and dream of barbeque. The hard work is done.
Funny, in his speech he looked like he finally knew he was in way over his head. Sort of like no one was believing his excuses why he hadn’t turned in his homework, but now he had a plan. Problem is he’s not capable of doing the homework.
He said Maliki’s government will field 18 brigades for the new way forward. 18 full brigades doing better than their typical 30-40% attendance rate? Operating without bias regarding Sunni/Shia differences? Even though fair chance they’re card carrying members, IAs will disarm Sadr’s Mahdi Army and Hakim’s Badr Brigades militias and others? Riiiight.
Say, how about we test that with doing Sadr City first? Invite Hakim’s guys over while that civil process is going on and ask them to hand in their weapons. Hakim was recently at the White House. I don’t recall the announcement, but surely his soul was checked while he was there. Must be a good guy.
Faux News
Very apt observation Tim. In fact given that this war is a train wreck it might serve the Dems very well to not impeach Bush and use him as their punching bag. Bush is NOT Clinton who deftly out maneuvered Newt at every turn. He is an easy target for the Dems, especially the Dem candidate for Prez in 2008.
AnneJ
I find it incredible that apparently politics trump the importance of the leaves of the troops being send in harm’s way.
TenguPhule
But you see, in Bushworld there are is no such thing as accountability. You merely say pretty words and keep doing the same shit over and over again.
The buck always stops somewhere else.
Teak111
The new plan is built on two goals. First, that they can makes Baghdad nieghborhoods safe and clear of insurgencies and hold that. Second, that the Shite malitias can be stopped by maliki long enough for the first goal to show progress. Hmmmm. Personally, I think they have to level sunnis areas of baghdad to be able to hold them. What keeps the insurgents from moving to other areas and returning once our guys leave, and insurgents only need one outrageous act to stir the rage of the malitias. None of this or Bushs speech last night address the political problems which are the cause of the insurency, namely that we took power from the sunnis and handed it to the shites. How are we going to resolve that problem? Ultimately, I think the ISG was saying, you have to be on one side or the other. That means letting the malitias and the insurgents go after wach other. BTW, I think 40 more bodies where found in Baghdad this morning. That’s what the malitia think of Bush/Maliki.
TenguPhule
I don’t. This is SOP for the current Republican leadership.
I just find it incredible it took so many people this long to figure that out.
The Other Steve
Looking at this from a political standpoint, I think the best thing for 2008 is if Bush get’s his escalation and we stay into Iraq thru the November elections.
That’s going to pretty much cause the destruction of the Republican party for the next generation.
BobJones
I think that the true believing neo-con fantacists are still directing this ship. After the disaster that is Iraq, they must know that there is no way they’ll be allowed near the levers of power again for several decades. These next two years are their only remaining opportunity to launch more wars, which is what they’ve wanted to do from day one. Their political fate is already sealed, so why not kill some more muslims while there is still time?
Mr.Ortiz
Food for thought:
The Other Steve
Oh, and I don’t want any impeachment or resignations… I want this party DEAD… DEAD… DEAD…
Withdrawing troops, any of that. Those all give the GOP an escape clause, a way to blame others for their fuckups.
I want them to take responsibility for their decisions, and the only way for that to happen is occupation through November 2008.
Sorry soldiers, but it’s for the good of the country.
TenguPhule
Oh that one is easy.
They’re going to blame the ‘Defeatocrats’ for it just like in Vietnam. When you can spin cowards into heroes and veterans into villains, truth is relative.
The Other Steve
When judging the intentions of others it is generally best to assume they mean the best, rather than the worst.
As stupid as the neocons are, I do not believe they are hoping for a military defeat so that they can launch their master plan.
BobJones
The worrying problem is that the escalation isn’t going to be confined to Iraq. If Bush starts a war with Iran and Syria, that is going to be a crippling problem for whoever wins in 08. What the hell are the Democrats going to do if in January of ’09, American troops are getting shelled along the Iranian border?
Punchy
Some snark. You REALLY don’t think he’ll blame himself, do you? That the GOP will take responsibility? That the military top brass will own up to all the cock-sucking that took place that ruined their efforts?
If there’s ANYTHING I’d actually, literally, bet my life on, it’s that when this shit all fails, they’ll (Bush and the GOP) will blame the Iraqis.
The Other Steve
That’s right. Don’t we live in an Ownership society now?
TenguPhule
If his plan goes through, look for Empresses Pelosi in 2007.
First big bunch of casualties as a result of ‘soldiers living in the neighborhoods’ and even the Republicans in the Senate can’t save him from impeachment and subsequent execution.
The Other Steve
Well that scenario would never happen.
If we were to attack Iran, their battle lines would collapse in a matter of days. We’d instead be occupying the nation, fighting guerillas who are holed up in the mountains and urban areas.
i.e. it’d look like every other occupied zone in the southwest Asia.
But as to what we would do. Great question. I don’t know. I say we encourage Russia to invade and leave the problem to them.
The Other Steve
I am still a huge proponent for exile. We need to do more exiling in this country.
Jake
Does the New Way Forward include mandatory surrender of power tools?
ThymeZone
So, the little drunk fuck makes a speech, and everyone runs to his corner and sucks his thumb? Did I miss anything?
LITBMueller
Its all about Iran. Take a closer look at what Bush said, in isolation:
Shorter Bushpeak: “It’s all Iran’s fault!”
Huh? How does one necessarily follow the other? Iran wants nukes no matter what happens next door in Iraq.
I heard this paragraph, thought of the extra carrier group Bush is sending out there, looked at my wife and said, “Gulf of Tonkin?”
Notice how BROAD that is? When the fuck did the terrorists/insurgents get MISSILES???? They didn’t… What good is an aircraft carrier going to do against a land-based guerilla insurgency? Nothing.
Its all about Iran, and the administration made that even clearer this morning by raiding that Iranian consulate in Northern Iraq.
But, wait, there’s MORE!
Heh….and people thought the Neocons had less sway these days! This paragraph is simply batshit insane, and it made Bill Kristol jump for joy.
Punchy
Exile to Baghdad. Outside, but within view, of the Green Zone. Genius. Either that, or exile to Philly. According to Weldon (Santorum?), there’s no diff.
Tom
“the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy, by advancing liberty across a troubled region.”
Sweet! How many more troops do we need to advance liberty? 20,000? Awesome, let’s go do it!
One question, though. We currently have 130,000 troops on the ground. Last year we had 160,000. Is 150,000 the magic number?
And I like this idea of attacking Iran (not directly addressed in Bush’s address, per se, but some people think he’s laying the groundwork for it). Is that our exit strategy? “Iraq is fucked, so maybe we can save face by doing it right with Iran… they’re the real problem after all.”
Someone should tell Bush he’s not allowed to start anymore wars until finishes the ones he’s already started.
LITBMueller
I think he’s breaking that rule already in Somalia…
Sherard
Well, according to McCain, the Generals in Iraq claim that they need 7 brigades to get the job done. And that’s exactly what they are getting. So, as usual, Tim’s analysis (HA! good one) is can’t, won’t, didn’t, shouldn’t, uh, RETREAT!!!
Man it must be great to be so goddam smart.
Pooh
Bzzt. Reality foul. 15 yards and loss of down.
Sherard
Well shit, there’s a grown up approach. Fucking brilliant. Thyme for Prez!!!
Retard.
sglover
You need to parse Bush’s “responsibility” statement properly. What he really meant was, underlings made mistakes, and he’ll “take responsibilty” as their boss. Our Dear Leader remains infallible!
Tim F.
Now there’s an unbiased source. But thanks for sharing, Sherard. Your bile always adds spice to a boring day.
TenguPhule
Shorter Sherad: I’m out of lube and I can’t get it up!
SeesThroughIt
Because I’m apparently a huge glutton for punishment, I turned on Fox News when I got home from work to see how the footsoldiers were doing with the Bush Party Line. What I saw was a special edition of Hannity & Dipshit (I’d say it was a “very special” edition, but when Hannity’s involved, alluding to it as being for the learning-disabled is sort of like saying A = A). You know what they talked about damn near the entire time? The Democrats. They even had this counter on the side of the screen saying, “What’s Their Plan?” and marking off minutes and seconds. That shit cracked me up.
I just found the whole thing even more craven than usual. The GOP beat their chests about how this awesomely awesome war was going to be sooooo fucking awesome and do awesome things for Iraq, and the pansy-ass Democrats should either support the GOP 100 percent or go away. After several years of having their way with Iraq policy and turning everything into a steaming dung heap, now it’s all of a sudden the Democrats’ mess. Uh-huh.
Jake
You’d better leave Fox News alone. Condi loves them long time.
Zifnab
21,400 troops are expensive. Let’s tag a whole bunch of war-profiteering penalties on that legislation. Cut the oil company subsidies out of the budget. Go after all the old Republican pet projects. Take back the Bridge To Nowhere money to fund the war. Chew large swaths from the Bush tax cuts. Hit’m where it hurts.
TenguPhule
Oh Gods, this sounds all too familiar.
“I don’t think anybody has a definite idea of how long a surge would last,” Gates said, referring to the troop increase. “I think for most of us in our minds we’re thinking of it as a matter of months, not 18 months or two years.”
Rumsfield is gone, Long Live Rumsfield II.
RLaing
The Guardian article about PSAs is unfortunate from a propaganda point of view, but I thought it was both factual and accurate. Oil is the obvious strategic interest in the region, and it makes perfect sense that US corporations would move to secure control of it. Call the article ‘treasonous’ if you want, but I don’t think the label ‘idiotic’ applies.
Jonathan
I disagree, as Von Clausewitz said “War is a continuation of politics by other means”. When assessing the enemy’s intentions one always assumes the worst while hoping for the best.
Rome Again
Pb said:
Bingo!
Tim F.
No one doubts that a US corporation will move to secure any resources that aren’t bolted to the floor. They are businesses; their shareholders would punish them if they didn’t. The rub is that they won’t be filling any contracts if we lose the war. Since that kind of story makes it that much harder to win, somebody in the decision process who is not a corporation should probably recognize the danger and quash it.
Sal
Here’s an idea. Since Bush will probably get what he wants anyway, why not attach a lot of Dem stuff to an appropriations bill Bush would otherwise veto? Stem cell research funding, minimum wage increase, etc.
I know good government would ideally consider bills on their own merits, but that’s never been the case yet, afaik.
mrmobi
I love this idea, but I would add gays in the military, gay female priests in the military and gay stem cell research. I would love to watch Chimpy McHitlerburton be forced to sign a bill with lots of gay stuff in it because he must continue to fund his fiasco.
I was un-willing to watch last night. It the POTUS still looking like a deer in the headlights?
BobJones
File this away along with:
-No one could have predicted the insurgency
-No one could have predicted the levees would break
-No one could have predicted what a horrible disaster Iraq would be
as perfectly obvious things that were predicted, and then occurred exactly as predicted.
Filthy McNasty
I listened to the speech, and all I could keep think was, “Why now? Nearly four years into this, and NOW you propose a change in course”. Since I read up on the war more than I believe most Americans do, I can understand the objective he’s going after, but there still is the question I posed above, along with others, like How temporary is this surge?, What does he mean by dealing with the Iran/Syria problem? Are the rules of engagement going to change, allowing stronger use of force?
Bush has the country in a bad position. He’s the CiC, but he seems troubled even having to sell this package to us. We’re four years down this road, and he’s told the country that all’s well if we stay the course. But of course it wasn’t. What he is proposing should have been presented at least two years ago, but because it wasn’t we now have to decide whether to sacrifice more money and troop lives for his stubbornness as a leader. So, the American people, I think, will grudgingly approve of the surge, but I don’t. I can’t. Not after the terrible job he’s done of carrying out this conflict. Maybe war in these times is too big for any president, due to lawyers running the show, the omnipresence of media, or whatever. But truth is, he has been incredibly stubborn with the facts, and has been unable to carry us along with a suitable explanation of why we’re doing this. He’s incapable of communicating to the people he is elected to lead. As such, we can’t let him punt this war down the road for his successor to handle, as Bush returns to Crawford to ride horses in retirement.
His proposal is too little, too late.
TenguPhule
Filthy, he’s talking about starting *another* war with Iran and probably pulling Syria into it as well.
Bush is bound and determined to kill as many American troops as he can before he’s thrown out.
And unlike everything else in his life, he’s going to succeed.
Jake
Dr. Rice sez clap harder!
Let’s try this out on some other scenarios that aren’t as serious as war:
It’s bad policy to wear seat belts if you’re trying not to get in an accident.
It’s bad policy to use a condom if you don’t want catch a STD.
It’s bad policy to run a full check before take off if you don’t want the plane to crash.
What. The. Fuck. I thought this was a war but clearly it is an exercise in faith. Trust unto the grumpy patriarch god to see you through. But beware! If you waver in your belief by planning to get the hell out if tings go wrong the grumpy patriarch god he will smite thee with failure.
And Gates wants to expand the army, which means recruit more people which means they’ll need to send guys out with fucking nets.
Zifnab
“The American People” in the form of a Congress that can’t cut funding without getting butchered in the ’08 for “Not Suppporting The Troops” will approve of this surge. Dirty political tricks and Roveian/Machivellian considerations will make refusing funding a political impossibility.
However, confidence in the surge still stands at 11% and you can garantee the folks who continue to warmonger won’t garner any popular support for a long while.
But ultimately the CiC is in charge of the troops, and only impeachment will stay his hand. As impeachment is off the table, that leaves the real America People powerless. Unless Bush decides to ride by any book depositories in Dallas. And then its in the hands of the CIA and God.
TenguPhule
Fixed.
Richard 23
Filthy McNasty, why do you hate America and our troops? You just want the terrorists to win, don’t you? And your BDS is showing.
sglover
This is precisely the mindset that scotched any kind of planning for the days after the glorious conquest of Baghdad. These people have learned nothing, not one fucking thing, in four years.
There’s a real Hitler-in-the-bunker aura to this gang of idiots, no?
ThymeZone
This concludes today’s edition of “Things So Fucking Obvious That They Don’t Need To Be Said.”
Tune in tomorrow, when somebody will say:
“The surge seems to be nothing more than a political fig leaf for a political maneuver.”
The Other Steve
This is only a problem with wars that don’t have to be fought.
If this was a war that actualy had to be fought, the President would have given a speech in 2003 saying he needed the Draft to call up two million soldiers.
That didn’t happen, did it? Because this wasn’t important to him.
The Other Steve
Maybe we can conscript the British as payback for the War of 1812.
Jake
Two weekends a month? Not so much.
TenguPhule
In the New US Military, you can expect to work only two days.
Today and Everyday.
demimondian
Geez, you liberals! Always exaggerating.
In the modern military, you only work in on instant: now. That’s right, just right now. For as long as now lasts.
TenguPhule
Dark Helmet: “But what happened to then?”
jake
Or to riff off Rumschmuck: There are now nows and there are unknown nows. Could we have known the now that was then would become the now that is now? I dunno.
demimondian
Or perhaps even “Could we have known that the now that was then then would become the now that is now now? You go to war with the confusion you have, not the confusion you want to have.”
Darrell
We have over 100,000 troops in Europe, 35,000 in Japan, and about a million stationed here in the US. If you want to make a point that we shouldn’t send more troops, then make it, but you look ignorant by claiming we “can’t spare” 20,000 troops. I hear so many lefties repeating that ‘we can’t spare more troops’ point so often, with no basis in fact, that it must be a Kos approved ™ leftie talking point.
Regarding the troop surge, QandO does a good job of crunching the numbers.
TenguPhule
Now subtract those in training, recovering from deployment, desk jockies, base personnel, pilots, support staff, and those belonging to non-ground combat forces and you don’t have much left actually able to be sent.
But for Darrells are soldiers are the same, no matter what they’re doing.
TenguPhule
Now subtract those in training, recovering from deployment, desk jockies, base personnel, pilots, support staff, and those belonging to non-ground combat forces and you don’t have much left actually able to be sent.
But for Darrells all soldiers are the same, no matter what they’re doing.