A beginner's guide to getting your surge on

Soooo ... in essence .... it is the dems who have been "surged," yes?

Brilliant.

Maliki has arrested too many Mahdi Army types to retreat now. He's committed.

If the latest plan is sucessful and is seen as being successful, let's hope the Republicans will be smart enough to use the Democrats' gutlessness and defeatism against them.

I won't hold my breath, though.

Interesting the first few comments, and much of the content of this post is far more concerned about defeating Democrats rather than terrorists.

I guess politics are more important than winning the "long war"...

Well this clarifies some things I guess but being a bit of a simpleton, can someone please advise why the World's only Superpower has to wait until the clock is almost striking midnight before it behoves itself to actually commit to a comprehensive battle in Baghdad? Anyone who thinks that this effort will ever be repeated in the future is dreaming in technicolour. Had it been done a year ago, or even 6 months ago that would have one thing, but now it is a pure one-off.

I mean Omar at ITM was ,almost 6 months ago, telling anyone who cared to listen that Baghdad was the focal point of Iraq and that it had to be effectively cleared of the usual goons, not to mention the Iranian infestation. And lots of people were expressing the belief that Al-Sadr and his thugs had to go, one way or the other. YEARS AGO. And yet here we are in January 2007, reduced to what amounts to a hail-mary effort.

I know that 'counter-insugency' is hard, but it does not have to be THIS hard. It is the lack of 'progress' that has soured most people on the effort. People do get remarkably tired ot folks getting blown up when 'objectively' things just are not getting better.

Who in the military bureacracy is responsible for this SLOW reaction to a problem which has just been getting worse for months if not years ?

Was it Bush?
Was it Rumsfeld?
Was it the commanders on the ground?
Was it everyone?

Inquiring minds really do want to know as surely someone has some splainin' to do since even the 'optimists' now admit that the previous operational plans and ROE were hopelessly dysfunctional.

I don't really care about how many 'new' troops are introduced into Baghdad. All I care about is whether they are now allowed )or more accurately, expected) to "kick ass and take names". Period.

No, Talboito. Politics are NOT more important than winning the war against terrorism. At least, politics shouldn't be more important. But tell that to the MSM and critics of the alleged "surge." Tell that to the defeatists who callously refer to the Commander-in-Chief's military directive as a "long shot" or "last stand" in Iraq. IMO, this post and the first two comments (mine, albeit sarcastic) relate to refuting politization.

Who in the military bureacracy is responsible for this SLOW reaction to a problem which has just been getting worse for months if not years ?

Was it Bush?
Was it Rumsfeld?
Was it the commanders on the ground?
Was it everyone?

Inquiring minds really do want to know as surely someone has some splainin' to do since even the 'optimists' now admit that the previous operational plans and ROE were hopelessly dysfunctional..............

Posted by dougf at January 20, 2007 10:17 PM

doug,

I think the fault lies with a MSM that laments every "possible" civilian death as reprehensible in Iraq and refuses to distinguish between insurgents and innocent civilians killed, refuses to name the culprits of the increased violence (Mahdi Army and Sunni/al Qaeda assholes), and then proceeds to write stories that say, America should stop because too many people are dying, instead of "America should kick the insurgents' asses and get this over with so it will get more peaceful sooner". It is the media who have created the environment which halts American offensives, gives aid and comfort to the insurgents, and tries to make the Maliki government look like American toadies, so that government then has to issue statements and act like it isn't an American toady, thus hindering prosecution of the counterinsurgency effort. All the military start and stop is driven by the media putting pressure on politicians to "play nice" instead of kill our enemies.

This could all have been over by now if the news had said "Insurgents continue to kill innocents, despite losing the war. Maliki government cracks down. Thousands of insurgents die. Maliki takes on Death Squads. Al Sadr in hiding."

Instead they have painted a bunch of barefooted, ignorant, uneducated, immoral, and hotheaded boys and thugs as some invincible insurgency which can move anywhere undetected, kill anyone it wants to, and the US and Iraqi governments are powerless to stop them. NOTHING could be further from the Truth. Like the Soviet Union, they are not ten feet tall and bulletproof. But the American miltary is, or is as close to it as you can get without divine intervention.

Subsunk

"Interesting the first few comments, and much of the content of this post is far more concerned about defeating Democrats rather than terrorists."

However, the only appearance of the word "Democrats" in the post is this:
"...sixty-three percent (including most Democrats) say they personally want the plan to succeed."

I was surprised by your comment, as I expected most folks reading this would see the same thing I did - the botched handling of the announcement of the plan by the executive branch.

As for politicians proposing "anti-surge" measures, they include Olympia Snowe, Chuck Hagel, and other Republicans.

I tried to keep this post non-partisan and simply informative. As for my own political views, you're seeing a prediction I made right after the elections come true:

Sap the will of half the people, and the other half will not be able to confront a (seemingly) distant enemy while being obstructed on the home front. Until now that split has been defined by political party affiliation. But any upcoming "compromise" will likely have the interesting impact of alienating half of Republican voters and half of the Democrats -each for different reasons, of course, but this promises a potentially interesting variation from the pre-election partisan separation.

...as individuals shift their positions on Iraq (centrist Dems, Repubs, and Independents seek common ground while extremists and "party uber alles" types on both sides move to the fringes) I predict the media will pander to the minority - those extremists, who will make great headlines.

You'll be able to identify the extremes - one side will call for "troops home now" while on the other side "don't listen to Democrats - they want the troops home now!" will rally the faithful.

The rest of us will work to "fix" Iraq.

And I believe I'm right on all counts. Even Hillary Clinton acknowledges that the Dem-controlled congress won't actually be able to pass any meaningful resolutions to stop the surge.

Doug,
I think Subsunk pretty much nailed it. I'd add that there are many political tightropes being walked in Baghdad and Washington, and that's a damn shame but also an unfortunate reality in any combat situation. It's all well and good to talk of the commanders on the ground having free rein to get the job done, but that rarely ever happens (and sometimes those commanders even restrict themselves because they think that's what "the boss" wants). I'm sure as hell not trying to excuse that, just saying the bottom line is the blame game becomes counter-productive. There's been a leadership shuffle in Washington and there's one coming in theater, now let's press.

As for this:

I don't really care about how many 'new' troops are introduced into Baghdad. All I care about is whether they are now allowed )or more accurately, expected) to "kick ass and take names". Period.

Thanks to Greyhawk and Subsunk for their insightful commentary.

And yes I agree with everything that you have said, but in the interest of FUTURE campaigns, and there will be future campaigns, would it not have been better to have simply bitten the media bullet and gotten the job done ?

You got all the crap press anyway so what would the difference have been ?

I saw a headline indicating that 34000 Iraqis had been killed in Iraq over the last year. Or at least I think the time frame was the last year.
I hate to use such a 'questionable' source but I believe that Uncle Joe once said--- "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic."

Frankly distasteful as it is to relate, he was probably correct in both a practical and psychological sense. What if that headline had said that 74000 Iraqis had died last year with the difference consisting of 'victims' of massive 'thoughtful' and consistent US pressure on the two centres of terror in Iraq. Would the 'headlines' be any different in tone or impact?

I think not. And continuing on, what if those 'extra victims' had really damaged the Shiite Militias, and the Al-Queda/Sunni 'assholes' so that Baghdad was now much more 'secure'?

I know it's simplistic but I firmly believe in the adage that in the end, you " might as well be hanged/hung for a sheep as a lamb."
The 'media' has been hanging you for 4 years, at the very least, someone should have been considereing making lemonade a long time previous to now.

But as I said, I'm a little simple.

So, you are basically saying that the only thing the President is doing is moving troops in about 1 month early and putting more in Baghdad?

If that is true then it is official that this guy is an idiot. That is how he is going to solve the quagmire we are in?

Or, could it be that he has nothing to surge with? Perhaps it is more of an "Urge" than a surge since he has not troops to surge with.

I got my hands on some briefing slides about the reserves and it is a disaster to say the least. Go to this site and you will see excerpts of those slides where basically the briefers (Full COLs) said that the reserve ranks are done.

Yo cap'n kevin, are those letters in front of your name initials or are you really an O-3? If you're an O-3 how the hell did you lead your troops with an attitude like that one. Were I in your outfit I would have transferred the minute you uttered your defeatist philosophy to the public (=troops).

WOW - As I watch this play out on all sides. It reminds me more and more of Vietnam. I just hope and pray we dont pull out of Baghdad the way we pulled out of Saigon.

Vietnam Veteran

Wow, Kevin, you almost sounded intelligent until you started throwing around the idea of a "War for Imperialism". What exactly is in the water up there?

So first we have an officer in the U.S. Army encouraging and assisting troops in getting out of their sworn duty, then posting information on troop strength on the internet for OBL and his buddies.

Have you bothered to resign your commission yet? Taken up the wearing of kaffiyeh?

Greyhawk, great explanation of the misrepresented "surge". Folks need to spend some time reading in detail our AARs from the theater. By the way, our firm has a little initiative to support soldiers deployed in support of OIF / OEF.

“Adopt a Soldier Platoon” Helps US Troops Connect Through “Operation DVD” American soldiers in Iraq & Afghanistan can send videos to their friends and families back home.

Thanks to the Adopt-A-Soldier Platoon (AaSP) – a grass-roots initiative launched by Unilever USA employees in New Jersey and Connecticut – more than 25,000 troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan have the opportunity to make DVDs to send to loved ones back home. This was made possible by the Platoon’s latest initiative, “Operation DVD,” which was started almost one year ago and is the most far-reaching project the group has tackled to date.

Alan Krutchkoff, a Unilever employee, is the president and co-founder of the Adopt-A-Soldier-Platoon. “A video is powerful. It allows friends and family to see and hear a loved one far from home,” stated Krutchkoff. “It’s better than an email, a picture or a distorted webcam image. And if a picture is worth a thousand words, what is a DVD worth to the families and friends of these brave Americans? One of our ‘adoptees’ in Iraq suggested this ambitious project, so we gave it a try.”

After hearing about the program, Valhalla, NY-based Fujifilm U.S.A. wanted to be part of this effort and donated 25,000 DVDs. “Sending home a video is a natural way to bring the soldiers and their families together, which was especially important around the holidays,” said Gene Kern, Director of Advertising and Marketing for Fujifilm.

However, getting the several thousand pounds of DVDs to Afghanistan and Iraq was costly. The Army and Air Force couldn’t ship the DVDs and the shipment needed to be paid for privately. “It was getting a little depressing,” said Krutchkoff, “We had the DVDs but couldn’t afford to get them to Iraq, even with the special rate DHL was giving us. So, I made one last plea to our more than 200 members for help.”

And then another generous company stepped in – the Pepsi Lipton Partnership (PLP), a joint venture between Unilever and Pepsico. PLP makes all the Lipton branded ready-to-drink teas. “We had a great year,” said Joe Bigos, chief financial officer of PLP. “We wanted to share our success with America and the troops.”

“Thanks to everyone’s generosity, we’ll have helped these brave Americans send messages home, share their feelings, show they’re okay and connect with those who love them and miss them,” added Krutchkoff. “Now that’s a great picture!”

Click on the following AaSP link and find out how you can make a difference in the lives of our brave troops: Adopt A Soldier Platoon, or you can send an email to Alan.Krutchkoff(at)Unilever.com to participate.

In it to win!

Citizen Deux, LCDR USN

Several points on the surge

1. Wouldn't the surge have a better chance of success if the strategy had an element of surprise? Why do we announce to the world what our plans are? The cockroaches just scurry away and bide their time.

2. Why is our military so strapped for resources? Because the President never asked a Republican Congress for a significant increase in appropriations. Now its too late with the Democrats in power. What in the hell was Bush thinking? Are we at war or not?

3. Rumsfeld should have been fired over two years ago for not having a plan for the "occupation" other than to expect that we would be welcomed with open arms and for never sending enough troops. He wanted to go down as the DefSec that revolutionized warfare by winning with a smaller footprint. What an ego.

I supported going into Iraq with the expectation that the Bush administration had a clue. They didn't and now we are on the verge of losing which will have awful consequences across the globe. The incompetence of this administration, including the Defense and State Departments, is breathtaking.

Greyhawk, I was about to send you an email about an upcoming interview; but then I read your Contact message.

I just want to let you know that tomorrow on Fresh Air with Terry Gross there will be an interview that I would love to see your opinion on.

The official wording from their website :

Coming Up:
Jan. 25 · Lt. Ehren Watada was praised by his superiors in the US Army as exemplary. His career was on a fast track. Then he was ordered to deploy to Iraq. He refused, saying the war would make him party to war crimes

As a side note, the actual promotion I heard on the air was that Lt. Watada considers this an illegal war.

Hey kids, who are we at war with, and how do we identify them so we can "kick ass and take names?"

The "surge" would work if the bad guys would wear t-shirts that said "Bad Guy" in big block letters.

It's bad enough reading this chest/beer belly pounding drivel. I'm afraid this is the level of "discussion" in the administration.

We've followed Watada a bit more closely over at MilBlogs. Short version: The dipshit joined after we invaded Iraq.

"Watada has said he is not a conscientious objector because he is not opposed to all wars as a matter of principle, and so offered to serve in Afghanistan,[8] which he regarded as "an unambiguous war linked to the Sept. 11 attacks." This was also refused. Watada, in turn, refused an offer for a desk job in Iraq without direct combat involvement.[5]"

Lt Watada also faces a court martial, which he should. But you guys still want to "swiftboat" him, don't you.

Do your homework Greyhawk. Looks like your the dipshit.

"swiftboat" watada? No, he blew a hole in his own boat when he shot himself in the foot.

The surge couldn't have been something simply thrown together at the last minute. I don't think there's any way possible that that large a force could have been added into the Iraq AO without a great deal of pre-staging logistics. I suspect a surge or surge like operation was planned on being probable for a long time before we in the gen pop got word of it.

Also, the surge was preceded by some events that all too often get left out of the discussion when it comes to timing such a thing.

I believe it most likely that the 1920 Revolutionary Brigade coming to the US forces in Iraq and asking permission to switch sides, and the "Anbar Awakening" signaled a sea change in the battle shape that indicated that the time was right for The Surge, as we came to know it.

War, no matter its form, no matter what cool new terms are COINed for it, is both fluid and static in turns. There's a time to move fast and hit hard, there's a time to hunker down and endure. Its getting the timing right on both those aspects that win.

Iraq, for all the bullcrap that the defeatists, enemy lovers and knee jerk betrayers spewed up all over it, was one of the faster and more successful counter insurgency ops in history. And, it wasn't even a true counter insurgency op. It was as much a hostile invasion by every psychopathic jihadiscum devotee to the death/murder cult from every corner of the planet, as well as a low grade invasion by actual covert military forces from Iran.

The entire weight of the jihad fell onto Iraq with a slaughtering frenzy.