Wtf???

[Jenny_Jackson]

Ok. GW is "surging" troops to Iraq. The image is that of an ocean wave "surging" onto the beach then with drawing. Right?

This is General Petraeus in late January -

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16857704/

Do the math: This is no troop 'surge' in Iraq
Increase in U.S. military forces is more about withdrawal than escalation
COMMENTARY
By Jack Jacobs
Military analyst
MSNBC
Updated: 8:54 a.m. PT Jan 29, 2007
Public figures, most of them with both too much time on their hands and a poor understanding of most things of significance, are gnashing their teeth about the planned increase in the size of the American force in Iraq.

To the extent that critics who are busy spewing vitriol are capable of performing a simple arithmetic operation, they can calculate that 21,500 troops will constitute an increase of less than 15 percent of the current force. Even as the word is inaccurately construed these days, this is hardly an “escalation.” This is particularly noteworthy in view of the confirmation testimony of Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who suggested last week that a successful pacification of Baghdad, ostensibly the objective of the surge, requires 120,000 troops, far more than we will employ. It is a startling commentary on the nature of American politics that Gen. Petraeus was confirmed unanimously by a body whose members on both sides of the aisle are opposed to the very policy Petraeus will execute.

So, if this isn’t an escalation, and we still won’t have enough troops, what is this all about? Well, it’s most likely about withdrawal.

First, both Republicans and Democrats would like to see troop levels in Iraq greatly reduced before the nation goes to the polls in November 2008, and it’s not surprising to see even Republican stalwarts foaming at the mouth about the administration’s malfeasance. But, for a number of tactical, strategic and diplomatic reasons, it’s impractical and foolhardy to withdraw precipitously. Indeed, some elected officials, such as Rep. John Murtha, who previously railed incoherently about immediate withdrawal, are noticeably less rabid on the subject.

Second, no matter how narrowly one defines “success” in Iraq, the definition must include the Iraqi government’s ability to control the security situation, particularly in the difficult areas of al-Anbar Province and Baghdad. At the moment, it appears that the Iraqis control little … and nothing of importance. Sure, there are some good things happening in some areas (the Kurds, as always, seem to taking care of themselves with nobody’s help), but al-Maliki’s government can’t seem to organize anything positive. As soon as we can point to some Iraqi success in Baghdad and Anbar, we’re gone.


Thus, the “surge.” Step One: increase U.S. troop levels and ally American units on the ground with the best Iraqi units we can find.

Step Two: enter a limited number of carefully selected areas.

Step Three: clear and hold these areas.

And faster than you can say “Step Four,” withdraw American troops and declare the Iraqis ready to defend themselves.

To be sure, quite a few Americans will remain, but they will mostly be in an advisory capacity. And Gen. Petraeus will employ time-proven counter-insurgency techniques that may result in permanent success in those few areas in which they will be employed.

But anyone who honestly believes that we intend to pacify a restive nation of more than 27 million people with a mere 21,500 additional troops probably failed third-grade math.

Aren't we silly? It's only 21,500 more troops. With those who are coming back from their tours, that's a net negative troop build up. Silly Democrats JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND, Damnit!!! (Oh, someone must not have told the General those troops are NOT being rotated back to the U.S. They've been extended. But that's ok. The numbers still work for the GW Administration's spin doctors.)

But then Friday, General Casey, who had been the top commaner of the troops on the ground in Iraq, let something slip. Note the numbers.

Army chief wants to speed up troop hike
Gen. Casey pushes accelerated plan to boost number of active duty soldiers
The Associated Press
Updated: 1:22 a.m. PT April 29, 2007
SCHOFIELD BARRACKS, Hawaii - The Army’s new chief of staff said Saturday he wants to accelerate by two years a plan to increase the nation’s active duty soldiers by 65,000.

The Army has set 2012 as its target date for a force expansion to 547,000 troops, but Gen. George Casey said he told his staff to have the soldiers ready earlier.

“I said that’s too long. Go back and tell me what it would take to get it done faster,” he said in an interview with The Associated Press during a stop in Hawaii.

Casey became the Army chief of staff on April 12 after serving as the top U.S. commander in Iraq for two-and-a-half years. He visited Hawaii for a few days in a Pacific region tour to talk with soldiers and their families. He next heads to Japan, South Korea and Alaska.

Casey said his staff has submitted a proposal for the accelerated timeline but that he has yet to approve the plan. He said the Army was stretched and would remain that way until the additional troops were trained and equipped.

No guarantees about future
Casey told a group of soldiers’ spouses that one of his tasks is to try to limit the impact of the strain on soldiers and their families.

“We live in a difficult period for the Army because the demand for our forces exceeds the supply,” he said.

A woman in the group asked Casey if her husband’s deployments would stop getting longer. She said they used to last for six months in the 1990s but then started lasting 9 months and 12 months. Two weeks ago, she heard the Army’s announcement that deployments would be extended as long as 15 months.

“Do you honestly foresee this spiral, in effect, stopping?” she asked.

Casey said the Army wants to keep deployments to 15 months, but “I cannot look at you in the eye and guarantee that it would not go beyond.”

Defense Secretary Robert Gates in January said he was recommending to the president that the Army boost its active duty soldiers by 65,000 to 547,000. Casey said about 35,000 of those additional soldiers are already in place.

Gates also recommended that the Marine Corps increase its active duty force by 27,000 to 202,000.

So, the question is this: Why would the Chief of Staff of the Army be asking DOD to increase the number of active duty soldiers and Marines by 65,000?

This is obviously starting to look more like a tusami than a surge. Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

Oh. My mistake. In February the "surge" was increased from 21,500 to 28,000. But General Petraeus last week in an interview on CNN that he was satisfied that by June all 35,000 troops in the surge will be in place.

Now I am confused. Is this called "Creative Accounting?"

 

[Guest]

You non-patriot, you.

Why do you hate freedom?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

You non-patriot, you.

Why do you hate freedom?

I love you, Sarahh. But it's not freedom I hate. It's the continuing lies, misinformation and changing stories coming from the GW government that drive me nutz. This troops surge has become almost like a game of Bop the Gopher at an amusment park. Everytime you think you understand, it disappears and pops up someplace else with a new spin.

 

[Guest]

I love you, Sarahh. But it's not freedom I hate. It's the continuing lies, misinformation and changing stories coming from the GW government that drive me nutz. This troops surge has become almost like a game of Bop the Gopher at an amusment park. Everytime you think you understand, it disappears and pops up someplace else with a new spin.

(I know.)

 

[dr_mabeuse]

My head kind of hurts, but I think this Jack Jacobs is being maybe intentionally disingenuous. 21,500 troops is 15% of the total number of troops we have in Iraq, but it could be like - I don't know - 30-40% or more of the number we have in Baghdad.

From what (admittedly little) I know of the Surge, it involves beefing up the Baghdad garrison by redeploying the forces we already have in Iraq as well as bringing in new troops. The danger, of course, is that the trouble will just move to where we're not - to the outlying provinces. The hope is that if we can cool things down in Baghdad, order may spread from the capital on out.

I'm really getting obsessed with this. I was just online this morning reading blogs from Iraq. Not the paid-for professionally-prepared "Anti-Terrorism" and "March-of-Freedom" blogs with the pictures of flags flying and screaming eagles, but the things the Iraqis themselves are writing. God, it's so fucking depressing. The lucky ones are the ones who've left. The rest of them are just trapped there in a killing zone with no way out.

 

[3113]

The lucky ones are the ones who've left. The rest of them are just trapped there in a killing zone with no way out.

Now, now. Remember that Baghdad is currently “like a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime,” or so says Rep. Mike Pence from Indiana. He was there in his bullet proof vest, surrounded by soldiers. So he should know

 

[Zeb_Carter]

The 65,000 Army soldiers and the 27,000 Marines are an increase in total force strength of those to branches of the service. Neither of which has anything to do with those deployed to Iraq, except possibly, rotation to and from Iraq would be farther apart.

It would appear that the Army CoS wants his command to be bigger than it is now, sooner than his staff had projected. He is also recommending the Marines do the same.

No need to get your panties in a wad!

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

The 65,000 Army soldiers and the 27,000 Marines are an increase in total force strength of those to branches of the service. Neither of which has anything to do with those deployed to Iraq, except possibly, rotation to and from Iraq would be farther apart.

It would appear that the Army CoS wants his command to be bigger than it is now, sooner than his staff had projected. He is also recommending the Marines do the same.

No need to get your panties in a wad!

I agree and I would just pass this off as inter departmental bullshit if Petraius hadn't slipped yesterday on CNN and said, "By the end of June all 35,000 troops in the surge will be in place in Bagdad."

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

I don't don't think the surge plan will work. But it's probably the best, maybe the only hope, Bush and the GOP have for getting out of Iraq with something that sorta, kinda resembles a non-defeat.

If US troops numbers haven't begun to fall before the next elections, no amount of Democrat campaign bungling will save the Republican Party from being destroyed in the polls and Bush going down as one of the worst Presidents in history.

Once again, I don't think the surge pan will work.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I don't don't think the surge plan will work. But it's probably the best, maybe the only hope, Bush and the GOP have for getting out of Iraq with something that sorta, kinda resembles a non-defeat.

If US troops numbers haven't begun to fall before the next elections, no amount of Democrat campaign bungling will save the Republican Party from being destroyed in the polls and Bush going down as one of the worst Presidents in history.

Once again, I don't think the surge pan will work.

Rumple Foreskin

I agree, Rumpy...
As I see it now, the Bush plan is to simply hang on until the end of his Presidency and palm the mess off on the next President, then try and blame the Democrats for not supporting his insanity.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I agree and I would just pass this off as inter departmental bullshit if Petraius hadn't slipped yesterday on CNN and said, "By the end of June all 35,000 troops in the surge will be in place in Bagdad."

That's far from 65,000 + 27,000 = 92,000. 20 odd thousand combat troops plus the support contingent would be about 35 odd thousand troops or 3 divisions.