A Longer Surge
Another One From The Files Of The Department Of The Obvious
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Featured Stories | War — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It should surprise precisely no one that a surge in troops will be needed for longer than September in order to bring order and stability in Iraq. General Petraeus has said as much today:
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said he does not expect the "surge" of 30,000 additional troops to Iraq to finish their job by September, a critical month when lawmakers expect a clear read on whether the larger troop presence is having an effect.
"Fox News" Host Chris Wallace asked Petraeus, "You surely don't think the job would be done by the surge by September?"
"I do not, no," Petraeus replied. "We have a lot of heavy lifting to do. The damage done by the sectarian violence in the fall and winter of 2006 and early 2007 ... was substantial."
Petraeus also did not dispute reports indicating he might want to extend the troop increase into next year, simply calling them "premature."
It actually isn't premature to talk about this. Quite the contrary; we should talk about this in order to lay down the groundwork for an increased troop surge, lest we fail to adequately communicate the need and allow those who oppose the reconstruction effort to broadcast unchallenged their demands for a precipitous troop withdrawal.
Of course, I have long ago lost faith in the ability of the Bush Administration to campaign on behalf of seeing the reconstruction effort through. I know that General Petraeus has a lot of good sense about him, but if the White House won't speak up on behalf of the reconstruction effort, there really isn't all that much that General Petraeus can do to fill the vacuum.
So color me concerned. Petraeus is surely right in saying that the surge needs to be extended past September. If he and the White House manage to pull off actually extending the surge, it would be nothing short of miraculous.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Surprise — Comments (3) »
A Longer Surge 13 Comments (0 topical, 13 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Hypothetical and rhetorical question. There is no answer, so don't bother trying, and I'm neither setting you up or picking on you. I just found your short post to be exactly right on point.
The point being, there is no agreement on the definition of progress at any stage. Even if there was agreement, the Dems and the NYT would promptly move the goal posts on August 30, making the whole exercise futile.
The only opportunity for a saving grace for this exercise will be if GWB decides to look for his manhood, actually finds it, and makes a very short statement that NewTone™ is dead and gone and Harry Reid and the Democrats are bordering on treason by pulling the plug on our valiant military. And that's not happening.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
The Dems are already talking about setting withdrawal dates by September. If little or no progress is made by then, you can rest assured that they will push for cutting off funding for the war. In fact, many on both sides of the aisle will probably be screaming for that. Promises of future success by either Bush or the generals won't cut it any longer come September. And can you really blame them?
The Bush Administration stupidly set themselves up for failure. If you needed to reinforce your troops in Iraq, you didn't need to attach this "surge" justification to it. The "surge" can possibly bring some temporary law and order to Baghdad. But, the expectation is that it will lead to a political solution in a sufficient amount of time.
I am incredulous that the Bushies think that the U.S. Army and Marine Corps can solve all Iraqi problems. You cannot build a nation with a police force! Where is the "surge" of all of the other federal agencies?
The American voters/taxpayers are never going to treat Iraq like South Korea.
P.
What happens in September happens, the President set himself and this nation up for something to resolved one way or the other in September by rejecting the Baker commission recommendation and substituting his own "surge" plan. In effect the President "owns" the success or failure of the mission and that day of reckoning is in September.
Unless there is some reason that you state as being "obvious", which is not so obvious to me, what is the point of continuing placing American men and women in uniform in the middle of the Civil war in Iraq. If the Iraqis want to kill each other, settling scores that reach back to ancient times, what the heck are we doing trying to stop them.
Maybe that means a change in US strategy to one of pulling back to secure areas, concentrating on training what ever force Iraqi government sees fit to field, maybe the "Three little Iraq model", who knows. But it's coming down to "Fish or cut bait" time.
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!
We've done our part and now it's time for the Iraqis to step up. If they can't do something significant by September, I think it's time to pack it in.
....to take Iwo Jima in four days. It took ten times that, fourty days.....and 6,821 American lives.
War is never the equivalent of a production of "Hamlet" or "A Midsummer Night's Dream" whith the characters entering and exiting on cue and a clean curtain drop at the end. Reality never is. Iran has been stirring the pot since day one in Iraq and Afghanistan, and should be informed in no uncertain terms to stop. The consequences of a failure to do so on our part will make WWII's death toll look like a Sunday afternoon stroll in the park in comparison with a large number of those dead, Americans on American soil. You have to remember these guys are willing to die to kill us.
If only Dewalt would supply one of their high voltage cordless drills so somebody could screw some brains into Harry Reid's, Nancy Pelosi's, and the rest of the Democrat Party's heads.
Comparing Pacific campaigns in WW2 with Iraq is completely missing the point. But, it would
be nice to have generals like Howling Mad Smith and Chesty Puller, these days.
the dems already have thier talking points explaining how it is all been a failure.
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
the dems already have thier talking points explaining how it is all been a failure.
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
Sorry, but I don't see it. I do see an attempt to influence MSM types into believing that there is a civil war but these attempts merely demonstrate the difference between a real civil war and a "made for MSM" civil war. The propragandists on the other side are doing their best but, compared to the amount of violence generated in a real civil war, they have not succeeded. However, the propragandists are winning the publicity war and that is the one that counts.
But we need to see some progress by September, and not just a call for a longer deployment.