Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I didn't see the speech. I disagree with Ackerman. I also disagree with Fineman about whether this is any kind of real "escalation" or "surge."
An increase in troop levels of about 20K soldiers (one division, more or less) takes us back to the troop levels of early 2005.
It is an increase of about 13% over current levels. Not much of a surge. [Holy crap, am I agreeing with Ollie North?]
If this strategy is to be successful, it will be as much because of the non-military pieces (which I think are underfunded and may be too late) as because of any temporary troop increase -- though the latter is important because security is critical.
I am afraid we've reached the point where both sides are playing politics with this issue now.
That is part of why, aside from sheer personal glee over the extent of the GOP defeat, I was really hoping the GOP would narrowly hold the Senate. A Dem House would have been a useful check and comeuppance. I think a Dem Congress may push things too far in the wrong direction.
[I sound like Hank in reverse now, don't I?]
S_A_M
|
I view the surge as more PR than substance. It's within the range of troop fluctations that have been occuring. Everyone's making too big a deal out of it, because they've got nothing else.
We can initiate a surge in activity with the troops we have now, plus or minus 10% won't matter much in our ability to do so. If our troops get ordered out of the barracks more often, there will be a surge. What a real surge in troop levels, to say double the troops, would do is let us surge activity with more cover and thus fewer casualties and more sustainability.
I am assuming that Bush will initiate a surge in activity, and the question is can it be successful or is it a bunch of casualties incurred without a discernable, achievable objective. The answer has more to do with whether we think there is a coalition capable of and committed to governing Iraq as a multi-ethnic, religiously diverse democratic capitalist state, or whether we think that the issues that speak most dearly to Iraqis have more to do with ethnicity and religion or with democracy and capitalism.
What does this mean I thought of his little chat last night? It's more of the same - a PR smokescreen that avoids engaging in the substantive issues. He's not going to deal with those in public; let's hope he's dealing with them in private and in discussion with the Congressional leadership. But because he's not dealing with them in public, we still don't have what we most need: a clear set of accomplishable goals to fight for.
Threaded Mode