More Troops, More Longer

My theory about the popularity of a "more troops" strategy for Iraq among pundits and politicians had been that they knew this wasn't going to happen. By recommending a course of action that you know won't be adopted, you'll get to blame the catastrophe on Iraq on (a) treasonous anti-war types, and (b) George W. Bush while leaving super-hawk ideology unscathed. The trouble, of course, is that Bush now looks set to embrace the "surge" strategy. So Jack Keane and Fred Kagan take to the pages of The Washington Post to argue that a three or six month surge "would virtually ensure defeat." Instead we need "a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so."

Once you're talking about an 18 month deployment, of course, you're not really looking at a surge. And the logistics of producing the surge by extending deployments start to get much more difficult. So Bush may get his surge and Kagan may still get to claim his brilliant strategy was never adopted after all. Be that as it may, the point is that this war will still be in full-swing -- possibly even further escalated beyond where it is today -- during the 2008 campaign.

Plus: Double entendre of the day: "The only 'surge' option that makes sense is both long and large."

UPDATE: Paradox of the day, J-Pod: "The key here is time. A 'temporary' troop surge will be a disaster." A permanent surge, sure. Just remember, ignorance is strength.

Comments

we are so f*cked

Posted by: Ugh on December 27, 2006 10:19 AM

that these idiots have now fallen in love with the word "surge" is no reason for you to, matthew: "escalation" is the word that you want to be using here.

while i like your theory, i'd like to point out an alternate one: george bush is easy to manipulate. since some of these lunatics appear to have concluded that bush will, in fact, listen to them, and so they keep upping the ante. i wouldn't be surprised if bush calls for at least an 18 month deployment as a result of this kind of needling: "ensur(ing) defeat" is a great way to characterize any policy on iraq that you don't want bush to adopt.

Posted by: howard on December 27, 2006 10:24 AM

Wrong again, Matthew Y., in the exact same way as previously. The neoconservatives' minimal necessary aim of invading Iraq was always to occupy it with an American army; anything else was gravy. Because there could never be any popular support for such a pointless war, it has had to be extemporized from the start. Kagan, understanding both the popularity and political necessity of withdrawal, is extemporizing to forestall such a possibility by creating facts on the ground in the form of this fucked up "surge".

Fred Kagan doesn't care about being right or being loved. He cares about maintaining our occupation, and, eventually, attacking Iran. He is committed to the Project.

Posted by: brendan on December 27, 2006 10:29 AM

The Baker report gave us a concept of "Managed Defeat"

Obviously the Bush administration had to reject that. So now, the Bushies gives us their take...Let's call it "Mismanaged Defeat".

The question I'd like answered by Bush -- what are you going to do if this doesn't work? It's not like planning for contingencies is something these guys know how to do.

Out now. It's the only thing this gang of goofballs can manage without fouling it up.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate on December 27, 2006 10:38 AM

that these idiots have now fallen in love with the word "surge" is no reason for you to, matthew: "escalation" is the word that you want to be using here.

While I agree that "escalation" is more accurate, I'm not all that insistent on reframing the issue given that even when "surge" is the talking point du jour, the public is against the concept of more troops by overwhelming margins.

The only place we are in danger of losing this issue is in the increasingly irrelevant halls of punditry. The public is way ahead of everyone.

Posted by: Steve on December 27, 2006 10:42 AM

If we aren't going to call an escalation an escalation, the least we can to is put the Frank Luntz-crafted term (Luntz or some jinglemeister of the Luntz school) "surge" in scare quotes whenever the word is used in the context of the war in Iraq.

Posted by: kth on December 27, 2006 10:42 AM

"Fred Kagan doesn't care about being right or being loved. He cares about maintaining our occupation, and, eventually, attacking Iran. He is committed to the Project."

First rule: anybody who supported the invasion, and who has not repented of that support, is wrong; we should not take their advice. It's pretty simple - if somebody has talked you into a bad situation, stop takng their advice.

Before the election and the ISG propganda facade, it was clear that Bush's plan was to keep the war going, hand it over to the next president, and claim that he didn't lose the war. After the election and the ISG propganda facade, it's now clear that Bush's plan is to keep the war going, hand it over to the next president, and claim that he didn't lose the war.

I personally believe that Baker et al. were trying to salvage GOP prospects for 2008. The war is now unpopular with a majority of the American people, who no longer believe that it's winnable. Last I heard, some incredible supermajority of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of the war (~90%).

The war had become a significant net negative for the GOP; the Wise Elders of the GOP projected the trends to 2008, and figured that the GOP would be laboring under a huge handicap. Forseeing a Democratic president, with signficant majorities in both houses of Congress, caused these Elders to conclude that an intervention was needed, even at the cost of making Bush look a bit bad.

Bush, however, being the Decider, has told the interveners where to shove it, has gathered with his neo-cons scumgang, and is staying the course. With a new name, of course :)

Posted by: Barry on December 27, 2006 10:45 AM

Next wingnut talking point: Democrats and librulz did not let God Chimp "surge" enough. Thus, it is not our fault....

Posted by: Hank Essay on December 27, 2006 11:11 AM

is this a plan crafted by jesus general? if our shock and awe troops only exposed their manliness surely the iraqis would lay down their weapons and worship at the altar of the almighty codpiece. what if the in"surge"nts have surge protectors and is this akin to cockblocking? where is agent zero figure in to all this?

Posted by: alias on December 27, 2006 11:18 AM

I don't really understand the pro-surge position, since another 20,000 to 30,000 troops isn't nearly enough to turn the tide in Iraq, even if you keep the force levels that high for 18 months as Kagan wants to do.

If we really want to turn the tide, we need to re-invade Iraq with another 300,000 or so troops.

If I wanted to call for a plan that might work but will not be implemented, that's the one I would pick. But no one, literally no one, is calling for that.

Maybe because it would require a national mobilization and a draft.

Everyone is resigned to defeat in Iraq, even the War Party pundits who say they want victory.

Posted by: grytpype on December 27, 2006 01:18 PM

We need at minimum half a million troops in Iraq, probably more than a million; and we need to keep them there for at least ten years, probably fifty years.

Bill Clinton down-sized our military. It's his fault that we can't waste even more lives and even more money for no reason in Iraq.

Posted by: Gary Sugar on December 27, 2006 01:43 PM

"Any sound military plan will break the problem of bringing security to the Iraqi capital into manageable parts."

Am I mistaken, or is this just a gussied up way of saying "Oh, and it would be a good idea to have a plan..."?

Posted by: kharris on December 27, 2006 02:03 PM

Look on the bright side Matt:

The 'surge' motif for 2007 will provide enough sexual innuendo and comic relief to make this idiocy *slightly* less intolerable.

Posted by: NealMurray on December 27, 2006 02:07 PM

I used to think that, since "more" is a quantitative comparison, "more troops!" would always be the battle cry of the hawks. "We would have won WWIV if only the liberals hadn't aborted all those troops!" seemed a sure bet for the Lieberman / McCain / conservative pundit position as they pushed for WWV. I thought that when adding "more troops" failed, they'd say it's because we didn't add enough.

But now I see they've added an axis of complexity. Not just more troops, but for more time. ooooo - finally some serious analysis!

I suppose I should be happy they thought of a multi-variable model for anything...

Posted by: The Black Monk on December 27, 2006 03:21 PM

But what will we do if, surprise, surprise, the Iraqi army remains unable to stand alone and the Iraqi police remains infiltrated by insurgents in 18 months?

What an enormous load of toxins this "surge" plan is. To call it bullshit honors it too much. Manure can be used as a fertilizer. This plan is good for nothing except a fig leaf to cover Commander Codpiece's shame.

He doesn't care how many Americans and Iraqis die so he can hold onto the hot potato of Iraq long enough to pass it to the next president. He clearly doesn't care what party wins in 2008, so long as he can tell himself that he wasn't wrong and didn't lose in Iraq.

Posted by: cowalker on December 27, 2006 04:22 PM

E-S-C-A-L-A-T-I-O-N

More accurate word. Conjures appropriate demons.

Frankly, I think we could see some mighty effective mass anti-war rallies again by next summer. Would be fun.

Posted by: Outlandish Josh on December 27, 2006 09:31 PM

I still say we're gonna get our butts kicked out of Greenzonia before the 2008 Presidential debates roll around. The only questions are (1) will it be this summer or next (wonder how Sadr's gonna react to our killing a key aide of his yesterday?) and (2) how long can we hang on at our Enduring Bases (and why?) after getting forcibly evicted from the Green Zone?

Posted by: RT on December 28, 2006 06:37 AM

thanks

Posted by: ucuz tatil on August 11, 2007 05:51 AM

thanks

Posted by: ucuz tatil on August 11, 2007 05:52 AM

thanks

Posted by: indir on August 11, 2007 06:03 AM

If you read all these comments, you relize hou lost we realy are when it comes to alternitive feuls. I think there might be some conspiracy from our goverments and there is a lot of con artists in this for money. But one thing is for sure - you can not buy a car that uses water as feul. I think we must start using wind and sun energy to safe money at home and spent it on fuel untill hybrid cars become the norm

Posted by: sohbet on August 21, 2007 01:14 PM

thanksss

Posted by: oyun indir on December 28, 2007 01:48 PM

sohbet

thank you

Posted by: sohbet on January 25, 2008 07:41 AM

sohbet
thanx mucu mucux

Posted by: Sohbet on January 25, 2008 08:45 AM

Thanks for you sites..

Posted by: ByUgur on February 12, 2008 01:52 PM

thanx man

Posted by: sex on February 26, 2008 11:42 PM

ttnet

Posted by: ttnet on March 8, 2008 04:38 AM

thank you.

Posted by: ankara nakliyat on April 16, 2008 04:09 PM

thank you welcome

Posted by: Ankara Evden Eve Nakliyat on April 17, 2008 04:43 PM

thank you

Posted by: Ankara Nakliyat on April 17, 2008 04:45 PM

thanksss

Posted by: Oyunlar on May 29, 2008 01:04 PM

tnksss

Posted by: muhabbet on June 5, 2008 02:47 PM

cinselmerkez.com
aseks.net
erotikcamasirlar.com
vajinatr.com
bakirevajina.com
cinselkozmetik.com
kozmetikmedikel.com
eturknet.com
tecavuz.net
yutuvideo.com
ponotubesex.com
laraperuk.com
sackanagimerkezi.com
peruksa.com
perukmarket.com
aseks.com
aloveshop.com
erotikgiyim.com
geciktiricispreyler.com
geciktiricihap.com
geciktiriciler.com
azdirici.com
bayanuyarici.com
fntazialemi.com
fantaziservisi.om
cinselmazemeler.com
cinselfantaziurunleri.com
erotikdakikalar.com
erotikmarketiniz.com
seksmarketiniz.com
sekshatlari.com
erotikdergiler.com
erotikderginiz.com
penisbuyutucuviprx.com
penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
penisbuyutuculer.com
vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
sismebebekler.com
sismebebekshop.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
elektronikmarket.net
ebedava.net
kontortr.com
elaydin23.com
turkcellkontorcu.com
aveakontoral.com
vodafonekontoral.com
toptankontorcu.com
ameribress.com
clitoriacream.net
superspenisbuyutucu.com
megabress.com
rednightperformans.com
performansartirici.com
penisplus.tv
penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
harbiarkadas.com
harbiarkadas.net
harbiarkadas.org
itirafet.org
ebedava.net
elektronikmarket.net

Posted by: erotik shop on November 3, 2008 08:39 AM

Post A Comment

advertise_liberally.gif