Surging Generals

Bush's plan for 20,000 more troops faces a cold welcome.

By Richard Warnica, 9 Jan 2007, TheTyee.ca

Big Story

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

At least 50 people died this morning as US gun ships and warplanes backed Iraqi and American troops trying to root insurgents out of a downtown Baghdad neighbourhood, according to the Washington Post. Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph is reporting that more than 100 Shia civilians have been kidnapped and hanged from lamp poles and utility towers in recent days, presumably in revenge for the execution of Sadaam Hussein.

But the big news stateside is all about “the surge.” According to reports published, well just about everywhere, US president George Bush will announce a major escalation in the number of US troops in Iraq in a speech Wednesday.

There are literally thousands of stories floating about the announcement. But the fact is, there’s not much news. The plan is expected to feature an increase of 20,000 U.S. soldiers as part of what Slate’s Fred Kaplan calls a “classic strategy of clear, hold and build:” Sweep out the insurgents, hold the space and pour in money for infrastructure.  But the real meat of most stories is the reaction the plan is receiving – and the reaction is not good.

As I trolled for opinions this morning, I found it remarkable just how little goodwill the strategy had garnered. If you disclude the naked partisans like Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, most American opinion makers, from either end of the spectrum, dismissed the plan with a mix of angry vitriol and cold disbelief.   

For the former we have the Times’ Paul Krugman. “The only real question about the planned “surge” in Iraq,” Krugman wrote, “is whether its proponents are cynical or delusional.”

For the later there’s Krugman’s conservative colleague David Brooks, an early proponent of the war.

“If the goal is to create a stable, unified Iraq, the surge is a good policy three years too late,” he opined.  “For that surge to succeed now, it would have to accomplish the following tasks: compel the Maliki government to deliver public services in a nonsectarian way; convert the Shiite theocrats who now dominate the Iraqi government into ecumenical multiculturalists; persuade the rabid Sunni leaders to accept a dependent role in the new Iraq; induce the traumatized Iraqi people to hang together as the blood flows; sustain, over 18 months, American political support for an arduous policy that begins with a 17 percent approval rating. The odds that the surge can accomplish these tasks are vanishingly small.”

Krugman and Brooks are hardly unique. Their two tones: rage at the very notion of a troop increase on the one hand, casual dismissal of it’s prospects for success on the other, are echoed broadly. 

Again, for the former, here’s Bob Hebert: “All of the tortured, twisted rationales for this war… have vaporized, and we’re left with just the mad, mindless, meaningless and apparently endless slaughter.” And for the later, Nicholas Kristof: “A surge in the number of troops in Iraq might have helped in 2003 or early 2004. But in 2007, President Bush’s plan seems to represent a warmed-over variant of approaches that have already been tried and mostly failed.”

Even Donald Trump (The Donald?!) took time off from slagging Rosie O’Donnell to jab Bush in an interview with Maureen Dowd.  The Commander in Chief is, in Trump’s words “a president who has destroyed the lives of probably a million people.”

Slate’s Fred Kaplan offered the most sustained critique of the strategy itself.  The plan is to be carried out by the new top general in Iraq, David Petraeus. Petraeus, in a more junior role, had the most success winning local hearts and minds in the initial stages of the invasion, according to Kaplan. He later wrote the military’s new strategy manual for combating counter insurgencies. 

But as Kaplan points out, an extra 20,000 troops doesn’t come close to the number Patraeus himself says are necessary to win the war. The clear, hold and build strategy requires, says Kaplan “at minimum, 20 combat troops for every 1,000 people in the area’s population. Baghdad has about 6 million people; so clearing, holding, and building it will require about 120,000 combat troops.

“Right now, the United States has about 70,000 combat troops in all of Iraq (another 60,000 or so are support troops or headquarters personnel). Even an extra 20,000 would leave the force well short of the minimum required—and that's with every soldier and Marine in Iraq moved to Baghdad.”

The big question ahead of Bush’s speech Wednesday is How will he sell the plan? The Washington Post’s Dan Froomkin posted an exhaustive list of the challenges inhenrent in the task on his blog today. But his colleague William M. Arkin went one further.

 “The only way the President will get what he wants is to put the troops in the middle of a tug of war,” Arkin writes. “Bush will show, amidst commander-in-chief pomp and the requisite hooah's that the military is neither exhausted nor finished. Congress will thus be trapped in the position where it will have to undermine and dishonor the American military to implement the will of the American people.” [Tyee]

Richard Warnica is a senior editor at The Tyee.

22 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Working Man

    5 years ago

    Madness

    War brings the madness out of anybody who would practice it. Of course, the USA sending 20,000 more troops is a useless gesture to the Faithful (how few they may be) in the USA.

    However, as the article states, the whole war has degenerated into a feudal mess that no American should be anywhere near.

    Pull out and Iraq will sort itself out. It won't be pretty but there will at least be some semblance of civil order.

    I am sure the oil will flow very quickly, too.

  • Coyote

    5 years ago

    Madness

    Much to my surprise, I actually agree with Working Man. (Though there has seemed to be a couple of them here, from time to time, with some different spelling of the monikers, one of which I typically disagree. :-)

    It was stated by much "expert" opinion, as I can recall, back at the beginning of this US Empire "imperial incursion" into Iraq, that before it was over it was likely that most of the Middle East and much of Africa would be in flames before it was over. With this latest planned "surge", a euphormism that echoes of the earlier Empire defeat in Vietnam, and now this criminal intervention into Somalia, that such "expert" opinion is inching toward fulfilment.

    As I have said, inexpertly, from the beginning of this, it will be proven that the only real outcome which can be hoped for, in the end, from even the point of view of taming The Empire Beast from a Canadian "interests" perspective, is that The Beast will be actually defeated, defanged, and driven in humiliating retreat back to its own land mass.

    Which remains my hope. And then there dis-spirited and licking its wounds, hopefully an opening will be created that will allow and encourage this country to finally break from its quasi-colonial dependency upon the US Empire. Hopefully after which, allowing for "liberation events" in Latin America as well, we will only have a more humbled and co-operative USA again-, sans its fascist "Empire" ambitions.

  • DPL

    5 years ago

    20,000 more For what

    From what I hear from Us journalists Bush is being called the worst president the US has ever had. But as long as he holds the position of Commander in Chief he gets to do dumb things.as posters above have stated this thing is getting worse. There is no end in sight, and if the Democrats cut funding he will tell us all that they are not supporting the troops. That of course in nonsense. KCTS national keeps showing, in silence the pictures of those killed. Many are under 21 years old. My God they couldn't even vote yet died supporting a government that cares less about them than dirt. No need to review the lies to get into Iraq. George once said"They tried to kill my dad' so for that thousands have died. One hopes the democrats cut George down to size and in a hurry. Some of those troops have been rotated a number of times. One wonders just how many of them will end with mental issues?

  • gkam

    5 years ago

    surging, I guess

    We are caught up in a Great American Tragedy. The failed son, the Fredo of his crime family, once again fails his father, threatening the family franchise, but unable to admit such, drags us all down with him, into the disaster of Oedipus Tex.

  • murdock

    5 years ago

    Vietnam 2.2

    Get ready for 1973 all over again folks!

    Complete with an oil embargo once the Iraqi people get 'fed up' with the performance of the US troops in Iraq and start gangbanging them all...

    Oh yes and once that all starts make sure you send a final note to those Canadian boys & girls in Afghanistan, since they will likely never see home again once the real slaughter starts.

  • G West

    5 years ago

    On the Surge?

    http://www.pollster.com/charles_franklin/iraq_opinion_review.php

    This is an interesting demonstration of how the American adventure in Iraq has gone successively down hill....

  • G West

    5 years ago

    Try this instead.

    http://www.pollster.com/charles_franklin/iraq_opinion_review.php

  • G West

    5 years ago

    Found another glitch

    See above - neither link is live.

  • Fiat lux

    5 years ago

    I'm far more worried about

    I'm far more worried about the secret talks going on to sell Canada to this bunch of pathetic idiots under the SPP and NAU.

    Iraq is a dead issue, so is Afghanistan, both lost causes and waste of resources and lives, but the NAU is alive, the secret talks are going on, as well as for the GATS and the Amero, and our main political parties are pushing all these criminal treaties to become " more competitive".

    Bunch of goddamn traitors, yet everbody just sits around with their fingers up their tails, worrying about hockey scores.

    Ed Deak.

  • murdock

    5 years ago

    Bread & Circusses

    Yes Ed:

    Quote:
    Bunch of goddamn traitors, yet everbody just sits around with their fingers up their tails, worrying about hockey scores.

    We have 'bread' = welfare
    We have 'circusses' = TV (sports, etc)

    So long as the masses are submissive and bumbling about in their collective haze, those with their fingers on the 'levers' of power shall continue to do as they please.

    How to wake the masses?

    Free them from the clouded minds that start in kindergarten.

  • Coyote

    5 years ago

    Quote:I'm far more worried

    Quote:
    I'm far more worried about the secret talks going on to sell Canada to this bunch of pathetic idiots under the SPP and NAU.

    Iraq is a dead issue, so is Afghanistan, both lost causes and waste of resources and lives, but the NAU is alive, the secret talks are going on, as well as for the GATS and the Amero, and our main political parties are pushing all these criminal treaties to become " more competitive".

    Bunch of goddamn traitors, yet everbody just sits around with their fingers up their tails, worrying about hockey scores.

    Ed Deak.

    Just had to respond to this, of course.

    There is a very important level at which Ed is right here, of course.

    Except maybe, from the point of view, mine of course, that now Iraq, Palestine, the Middle East, and "the horn of Africa" perhaps, play into the very possibility in this country, in entirely "pragmatic" terms, of even practically re-securing control of the sovereignty of our country. An Amerika, for example, that comes out of this strengthened, triumphalist, beating its Amerikan flag tatooed chest, and more powerful in its influence, "practically" guarantees that this country is swallowed up into Greater Amerika, dressed up as the North AmeriKan Union.

    On the other hand, a defeated and weakened Amerikan Empire, licking its wounds and absorbed within itself, naval gazing and weeping, as I've previously said, is a "practical" precondition to actually having any hope in hell of recovering control of our own sovereign Canada.

    So I know which scenario, from a practical Canadian national interests point of view, I would prefer as the real outcome here. (And indeed, it is increasingly looking like the most likely outcome anyway, regardless of what I or anyone might want.)

    Still, the old son of a bitch, Ed is right too. :-) How to reconcile the two? B-D LOL

  • mopled

    5 years ago

    Drumbeats for an attack on Iran

    I'm afraid of a "Blame it on Iran" senario. Listening to CKNW this afternoon, some joker peddling the "Ahmedin? whatever it is is, is Hitler re-encarnate and we have to take him out now", nonsense got me outraged.
    How many times do we have to go through this? Sadam was supposed to be a "nukular-armed" Hitler. Cheney is itching to bomb Iran and as was pointed out in the broadcast by Webster Tarpley below, Halliburton is finished with Iraq, so it's on to greener pastures.

    We have at least two ships in the Eastern Med., so we will be involved if the US manages to get Iran to attack the fleet or if the fleet attacks Iran.

    http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Tarpley/0701/20070106_Sat_Tarpley2.mp3

  • G West

    5 years ago

    G West to Mopled

    Some very sobering stuff indeed. Very dire introductory music too.
    I'd be interested to hear what Colin has to say? And Murdock for that matter.

  • gotabrain

    5 years ago

    The American Problem

    The American problem is the fact that the Democrats want to lose in Iraq to discredit Bush and the Republicans for '08 elections.
    Don't get me wrong here. War is wrong and the invasion of Iraq was stupid but it was stupid for reasons other than those given out by the Democrats and the anti-war movement. Bush didn't lie about WMDs. One of Saddam's leading generals wrote a book which detailed the move of WMDs to Syria prior to invasion.
    The invasion of Iraq was stupid because the US has no idea how complicated the politics of regime change are. The real time to take out Saddam was during the first Gulf War. The political stage was set and after the invasion of Kuwait and setting all those oil wells on fire, Saddam was ripe for the plucking. Saddam's savior at that time was the UN which brokered a deal that created oil-for-food of which the UN was paid a load of bucks to administer above the table not to mention under the table.
    Viet Nam is found in Iraq not by going in but by failing to read the signs of the times. Viet Nam started when the allies reneged on the promise to allow the Vietnamese people independance in return for their help fighting the japanese in WWII. Viet Nam was returned to the french after the war as a result of that broken promise. Prior to that act, the allies' largest supporter was a man named Ho Che Minh who then sought help from the chinese communists in the early 50's.
    Going into Iraq was stupid but failing fix the mistake by working in half measures is a waste of all the lives lost up till now.
    The Democrats don't care though. They just want a Democratic President in '08.

  • murdock

    5 years ago

    World Crisis Radio?

    I have reviewed the materials contained in the recording:

    http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Tarpley/0701/20070106_Sat_Tarpley2.mp3

    G West, the music is from some german//russian operas, I think.

    I think that many would dismiss the OSS materials as 'crackpot' and call for their 'tin-foil hats'.

    The situation appraisal of the supply lines is very accurate, and Wolfowitz knows very little of this sort of situation.

    I am reminded of action taken by German high command before the collapse of Stalingrad, where brilliant staff officers had taken an appraisal of the situation in late 1942, stating that 'if steps are not taken to address the situation (northwest and south east of the city) there will be a catastrophy.' These generals and senior colonels were dismissed by Hitler, whom replaced them with a party zealot stating, "National socialist ardor is more important than professional ability..."

    With the US army now gutted, since the US army has an 'up (promotion) or out' policy, the only way to gain the highest of ranks was to kowtow to the white-house cool aid infected vision of the world...so the best and brightest are out. Leaving only the dullards behind, witness the exodus after Colin Powell was 'dismissed' following his 'performance' at the UN.

    When 'all the presidents men' are sycophants and toady little yes men, led by 'the pretorian' Cheney what do you expect?

    With this supply disaster looming, and now seemingly the US Navy ready to drink deeply of the White House kool aid, the prospects for a successful conclusion to the Afghanistan mission get slimmer and slimmer.

    If the US are unable to get out or resupply thier own men, what prospect do we have for doing anything to assist our young people stuck in the mountains of Afghanistan?

    Even if none of what the radio broadcast comes to pass, even if the US manages to wriggle away from engaging in Jihad with Iran, the efforts needed to avoid all that will draw away the resources and good will needed to continue to be of any effect at all in Afghanistan.

    We, in Canada, will be (rightly) accused of failing to execute our stated actions in Afghanistan, then we will be (partly) blamed for the failure. Once the tide starts to shift in the 'opposition's' favor, the troops on the ground had better be ready for the death march that I have posted about many times before.

    This changes nothing in my view of the prospects for the Canadian forces in Afghanistan, it does make the prospect of the Americans 'taking one on the chin', then getting gut shot (if the Navy gets hit with the sort of 'super exocet' that the radio broadcast mentions) very possible.

    Dark days for sure.

  • Alcibiades

    5 years ago

    Dark days indeed

    And the Americans precipitate action in attacking the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad a day or so ago would be, I'd have thought, tantamount to an act of war. On the other hand, is that a misapprehension on my part?

    One thing certain, if the Iranians have the missile capability described in the clip, things - should push come to shove - will not bode well for the US Navy - nor any Canadian ships in the environs either.

    I thought maybe it was Mozart, from Don Juan – I can think of several passages from Shostakovich’s Leningrad Symphony that would have worked as well and of course Wagner comes to mind. It always frustrates me when they don’t name the music.

  • Colin

    5 years ago

    To little, to late

    Hmm better format at the tyee.

    This surge is to little and to late, the US should have crushed Sadar's militia at least a 1 1/2 years ago, (not to mention the disbanding of the Iraqi army) before the Iranians could strengthen it to much. The various parties will lay low for a few months as they know the US is planning to draw down again. This is the first step in exit. Will many you here will celebrate, the withdrawal of US troops will leave the country vulnerable and the various parties will be supported in a proxy war by the Iranians and the Saudi’s leading to far more deaths than anything the US did.

  • Colin

    5 years ago

    To clairfy my post, the

    To clairfy my post, the disbandment of the Iraqi army was a serious mistake.

  • murdock

    5 years ago

    A Serious Mistake...

    THE serious mistake was believing the tripe that Colin Powell was spouting at the UN BEFORE this debacle began.

    THE serious mistake was allowing the US to take the UNILATERAL action that it did without any serious consequences with other G8 (9-10-11 whatever it is called now) nations. France and Germany tried to lead a resistance and found only apathy.

    With the USSR financially bankrupt now the moral bankruptcy comes home to roost with its fraternal twin...USA.

    Anthing else done now will only make the fall harder on everyone.

    If the US were really interested in making a substantial change in their exit they would even now be pushing Turkey for 'border concessions' to form a northern Kurdistan; Syria and Saudi to 'openly advance' into central Iraq; and a 'buffer zone' between Kuwait and Iran...

    Back off and let the powers that be take their actions - preferably at a negotiating table and not a blood-soaked battlefield.

    But then Israel would never stand for their proxy allowing this sort of 'level headed' rational approach to the region.

  • G West

    5 years ago

    Colin

    Did you listen to the clip?

  • Colin

    5 years ago

    Gwest, sorry but no I

    Gwest, sorry but no I didn't.

    As always you should consider what would the world look like if they didn’t. Sanctions were collapsing, the only reason Saddam started to cooperate with the UN was because the US/UK had 250,000 troops at his front door. Had the US drawn down it’s forces to the defensive level, Saddam would have told the UN inspector to “F” off. China, France and Russia where all making overtures to get access to Iraq’s oil reserves. Russia was owed 80 billion for war supplies and China and France were also owed big bucks for the same stuff. It would have been business as usual and the first thing Saddam would have done is restart his WMD programs likely with the help of NK and Pakistan. Then very quickly we would be having an Nuclear arms race between Iraq and Iran, one which would more than likely go hot.
    Frankly the current situation is far safer than what you guys were wishing for.

  • G West

    5 years ago

    Colin

    It's just up above here - posted by mopled:

    http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Tarpley/0701/20070106_Sat_Tarpley2.mp3

    It takes ages to load but it's worth your time to listen to. I'd like to hear your reaction if you have time.

    I don't agree with your last statement by the way.

    • No best comments selected by an editor for this story yet. To see all comments, click the All Comments tab, above.
    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.