T Nation

Troop Surge

I was very skeptical of this plan from the start. Military minds said it’d work, and they know their business more than me, who’s not in the business. However, I am a fair chess player, and do know strategy.

I just heard a report on CNN (stop… I know) that the troop surge must be kept up, indefinitely, for it to work. This is from the military talking heads.

So far, the troop surge has been met with mixed reviews, though I’d say it has not been a success. It’s continuation would result in the same condition. How many times have we said that to do the same thing over and over expecting different results is… stupid?

Why haven’t the powers that be considered a diminished presence may spur a drop in insurgent behavior? Most of the conflict has been in Baghdad, where we have an overwhelming presence. Everywhere else… not much conflict, and not much presence.

Stay out of the city; guard it’s perimeter so as to not let in insurgent arms.

Opinions?

The number of dead civilians surely isn’t decreasing. I sincerely doubt it can get any worse than this. Today, over a hundred people were killed in a blast and 240 were injured.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6279864.stm

The BBC is compiling data on a regular basis. Take a look at evolution:

“The build-up of US troops in Iraq is now complete. The level of violence has not decreased, with attacks shifting away from places where US forces are concentrated, such as Baghdad and Anbar, into other, less defended provinces, says the BBC’s Defence and Security correspondent Rob Watson. During the seven-day period ending on 4 July, there were 617 violent deaths compared to 299 for the week before. As in the previous two weeks, most of those killed were civilians - 365 of them.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2007/iraq_surge/default.stm

Even Republican Senator Richard Luga voiced concern over the success of the president’s vision.

I think the word we’re all looking for is “clusterfuck”!

Civilian casualties were down in June.

The word to describe what we are seeing is war. We can either fight it or watch people get slaughtered by the Islamists.

When they are done slaughtering in Iraq and consolidate power do you think they will stop there?

[quote]kroby wrote:
I was very skeptical of this plan from the start. Military minds said it’d work, and they know their business more than me, who’s not in the business. However, I am a fair chess player, and do know strategy.

I just heard a report on CNN (stop… I know) that the troop surge must be kept up, indefinitely, for it to work. This is from the military talking heads.

So far, the troop surge has been met with mixed reviews, though I’d say it has not been a success. It’s continuation would result in the same condition. How many times have we said that to do the same thing over and over expecting different results is… stupid?

Why haven’t the powers that be considered a diminished presence may spur a drop in insurgent behavior? Most of the conflict has been in Baghdad, where we have an overwhelming presence. Everywhere else… not much conflict, and not much presence.

Stay out of the city; guard it’s perimeter so as to not let in insurgent arms.

Opinions?[/quote]

Kroby,

I have an entire thread devoted to this.

There have been plenty of successes–killing, capturing iranian operatives, Anbar Salvation Council, joint ops with Sunni’s, Shia’s, U.S., etc.

There has been plenty of blood.

Now, please don’t watch cnn to help you decide whether it has been a success. They have a vested interest in making sure YOU believe it hasn’t.

Finally, going forward, I’ve been an advocate of U.S. regional bases. Place a base in each of the largest provinces. Back down off the street, remove the cnn reporters, and keep iran from invading.

Oh, turning tail and giving lixy his much sought after victory, would be catastrophic. (iran, al qaeda, etc.)

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Now, please don’t watch cnn to help you decide whether it has been a success. They have a vested interest in making sure YOU believe it hasn’t.
[/quote]

And that would be because…? Are they on Al-Qaeda’s payroll? Do they own stock in flower companies? Are dead soldiers and wasted tax money bad for their business?

Last I checked, CNN was among the stations that relayed Bush/Cheney’s rhetoric about how Saddam was gonna attack the US with WMDs. They also seemed to be more than happy with the intial attacks, cheering the operation and pounding its chest in an attempt to show how powerful the US military is.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Civilian casualties were down in June.

The word to describe what we are seeing is war. We can either fight it or watch people get slaughtered by the Islamists.[/quote]

That’s what I’m watching now.

Hell no. We need infiltration, and that can’t be done with presence.

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Now, please don’t watch cnn to help you decide whether it has been a success. They have a vested interest in making sure YOU believe it hasn’t.[/quote]

I get most of my news from BBC

The first step towards failure is becoming immobile. Regional bases ensures that they’ll have a target on which to coordinate an attack. No, this is a bad idea.

[quote]Oh, turning tail and giving lixy his much sought after victory, would be catastrophic. (iran, al qaeda, etc.)

JeffR[/quote]

ofttimes, a feint will offer up a weakness of your opponent. Art of War 101. It creates disarray and shows their hand. That’s when you crush them.

[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Now, please don’t watch cnn to help you decide whether it has been a success. They have a vested interest in making sure YOU believe it hasn’t.

And that would be because…? Are they on Al-Qaeda’s payroll? Do they own stock in flower companies? Are dead soldiers and wasted tax money bad for their business?

Last I checked, CNN was among the stations that relayed Bush/Cheney’s rhetoric about how Saddam was gonna attack the US with WMDs. They also seemed to be more than happy with the intial attacks, cheering the operation and pounding its chest in an attempt to show how powerful the US military is.[/quote]

ted turner and guys like anderson cooper (I caught him using the pronoun “we” when bemoaning not being invited to a dem function), larry king, bill schneider (leaving), etc.

JeffR

[quote]kroby wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Now, please don’t watch cnn to help you decide whether it has been a success. They have a vested interest in making sure YOU believe it hasn’t.

I get most of my news from BBC

Finally, going forward, I’ve been an advocate of U.S. regional bases. Place a base in each of the largest provinces. Back down off the street, remove the cnn reporters, and keep iran from invading.

The first step towards failure is becoming immobile. Regional bases ensures that they’ll have a target on which to coordinate an attack. No, this is a bad idea.

Oh, turning tail and giving lixy his much sought after victory, would be catastrophic. (iran, al qaeda, etc.)

JeffR

ofttimes, a feint will offer up a weakness of your opponent. Art of War 101. It creates disarray and shows their hand. That’s when you crush them.[/quote]

kroby,

Well defended regional bases. I mean WELL DEFENDED!!!

You are saying redeploy, then send back in?

Interesting. However, I think politically that time has passed.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:

kroby,

Well defended regional bases. I mean WELL DEFENDED!!!

You are saying redeploy, then send back in?

Interesting. However, I think politically that time has passed.

JeffR

[/quote]

I’d rather use temporary, nondescript, predetermined and surveilled troop stations. A dozen discreet buildings around the perimeter of the city, that shock troops use for an indeterminant amount of time, slipping in and out in the dead of night.

That way, the enemy doesn’t know where we’re coming from and can’t plant roadside bombs to hit them. Have them use non-com vehicles, wear indigenous clothing over their armor. They won’t know you’re there until you’re on top of them, and then you can crush them.

Use other troops wearing their colors and sneak up on them as cover, blinding your enemy of your full force while they look in front of them, you get them from behind.

But all this has to start with them thinking we’re leaving. This isn’t cutting and running. It’s tactics. It’s not even a retreat. It’s subterfuge. “Watch my right hand, and my left will take you out.” Classic chess strategy. An unbalanced enemy will always lose.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
ted turner and guys like anderson cooper (I caught him using the pronoun “we” when bemoaning not being invited to a dem function), larry king, bill schneider (leaving), etc. [/quote]

So, your argument is solely based on a belief that Democrats “have a vested interest in making sure YOU believe it hasn’t” been a success?

I’m still very confused by what that interest might be. If they (the Dems) knew that there’s a remote possibility for the war to be taken to US soil (Nixon used that threat repeatedly about the Viet war), would they take the risk of being blamed for the deaths the Iraqi insurgents might cause US civilians?

Are they somehow benefiting in any way if the troops withdraw? If so, please list those benefits because they’re not obvious at all to me.

[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
ted turner and guys like anderson cooper (I caught him using the pronoun “we” when bemoaning not being invited to a dem function), larry king, bill schneider (leaving), etc.

So, your argument is solely based on a belief that Democrats “have a vested interest in making sure YOU believe it hasn’t” been a success?

I’m still very confused by what that interest might be. If they (the Dems) knew that there’s a remote possibility for the war to be taken to US soil (Nixon used that threat repeatedly about the Viet war), would they take the risk of being blamed for the deaths the Iraqi insurgents might cause US civilians?

Are they somehow benefiting in any way if the troops withdraw? If so, please list those benefits because they’re not obvious at all to me.[/quote]

lixy,

The dems have repeatedly stated that Iraq is Bush’s War. Therefore, it’s failure would be laid at his door.

They hope political power would follow.

Clear?

JeffR

P.S. Stop being obtuse. You understand this quite well.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
The dems have repeatedly stated that Iraq is Bush’s War. Therefore, it’s failure would be laid at his door. [/quote]

How can they say that it’s Bush’s war when they supported it in the first place? Doesn’t make sense.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the Dems’ landslide victory in both chambers last year caused by the public getting tired of the war? The way I see it, keeping Bush’s “strategy” seem to work wonders in hurting the Republicans. Why would the Democrats wanna change that?

[quote]JeffRo wrote:
The dems have repeatedly stated that Iraq is Bush’s War.[/quote]

Whose fucking mess is it then? Wanna blame it on England, since Tony supported it too?

Even your Douchebag-in-Chief probably already knows how history is going to score this monumental fuck-up.

Pretty much too late now to change that.

[quote]Clear?

JeffR

P.S. Stop being obtuse. You understand this quite well.[/quote]

You calling anyone obtuse or a “troll” is about as fucking funny as it gets.

[quote]kroby wrote:
I was very skeptical of this plan from the start. Military minds said it’d work, and they know their business more than me, who’s not in the business. However, I am a fair chess player, and do know strategy.
…[/quote]

Stop right there cowboy. I remember when some comitee agreed that a military victory wasn’t going to happen any time soon.
That Syria and Iran should be contacted to allow for a diplomatic sollution.

Everybody agreed that this was the way to go and Bush would look into it.

He did and decided for the “surge”. Nobody looked back ever since.

[quote]tme wrote:
JeffRo wrote:
The dems have repeatedly stated that Iraq is Bush’s War.

Whose fucking mess is it then? Wanna blame it on England, since Tony supported it too?

JeffRo wrote: Therefore, it’s failure would be laid at his door.

Even your Douchebag-in-Chief probably already knows how history is going to score this monumental fuck-up.

JeffRo blathered: They hope political power would follow.

Pretty much too late now to change that.

Clear?

JeffR

P.S. Stop being obtuse. You understand this quite well.

You calling anyone obtuse or a “troll” is about as fucking funny as it gets.

[/quote]

tme!!!

What a treat!!! Wait, that was an overstatement.

The Iraq War was and should still be our war.

Unfortunately, the dems have decided to jump ship.

Politics over principle.

We love our dems.

JeffR

[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
The dems have repeatedly stated that Iraq is Bush’s War. Therefore, it’s failure would be laid at his door.

How can they say that it’s Bush’s war when they supported it in the first place? Doesn’t make sense.[/quote]

Everyone write down the date!!!

lixy stumbled over the truth!!!

As Churchill would say, I’ll bet he gets up, brushes this unfortunate incident (speaking truth) off and walk away as if nothing happened!!!

Of course it doesn’t make sense. But, hey, they’re dems.

JeffR

[quote]reckless wrote:
kroby wrote:
I was very skeptical of this plan from the start. Military minds said it’d work, and they know their business more than me, who’s not in the business. However, I am a fair chess player, and do know strategy.

Stop right there cowboy. I remember when some comitee agreed that a military victory wasn’t going to happen any time soon.
That Syria and Iran should be contacted to allow for a diplomatic sollution.

Everybody agreed that this was the way to go and Bush would look into it.

He did and decided for the “surge”. Nobody looked back ever since.[/quote]

Hey, muffin man.

Not likely that syria or iran would do anything that wasn’t self-serving or hostile.

Therefore, said recommendations were rejected.

JeffR

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Stop right there cowboy. I remember when some comitee agreed that a military victory wasn’t going to happen any time soon.
That Syria and Iran should be contacted to allow for a diplomatic sollution.

Everybody agreed that this was the way to go and Bush would look into it.

He did and decided for the “surge”. Nobody looked back ever since.[/quote]

That’s a very powerful insight Wreckless.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Everyone write down the date!!!

lixy stumbled over the truth!!!

As Churchill would say, I’ll bet he gets up, brushes this unfortunate incident (speaking truth) off and walk away as if nothing happened!!!

Of course it doesn’t make sense. But, hey, they’re dems. [/quote]

The truth? Anyone with a decent attention span could have told you that.

There is no doubt at all that the Dems bought into Powell/Cheney/Bush’s rhetoric and supported the unnecessary war. What I questioned was the fact that they would just deny everything, wash their hands and lay all the blame on Bush. That’s what you claimed in your previous post. Let me refresh your memory:

“The dems have repeatedly stated that Iraq is Bush’s War. Therefore, it’s failure would be laid at his door.”

That statement was the one that don’t make sense.