 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! January 20, 2007 A beginner's guide to getting your surge onBy GreyhawkOr: "How to stop choosing the wrong damn side in this war" President Bush announces The Surge - 20,000 additional troops to Iraq. "The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad." Americans respond: Fox poll: "By 59 percent to 36 percent, Americans oppose sending more U.S. troops to Iraq."But sixty-three percent (including most Democrats) say they personally want the plan to succeed. But with an eye on the above numbers, Lawmakers were introducing Iraq legislation at a mad pace yesterday, at one point in the afternoon scheduling news conferences in half-hour intervals.With poll results in, they wanted to confirm their own opposition to the plan. But what is it they oppose? By the same token, what is it that others are supporting? What exactly is this plan that most Americans "want to work"? You might think you know. You might be under the false impression that 20,000+ troops who otherwise wouldn't be in Iraq will now be there. You'd be wrong - but it's not completely your fault. The President didn't offer details in his speech, and nowhere in all the subsequent coverage of "The Surge" will you discover an explanation of how it's being accomplished. But before deciding what you think about the plan you might want to take a moment to learn what it is. Clarifying that is not a difficult task - the issue isn't complicated and the information is unclassified. The Pentagon has released the details, and they are readily available on various public DoD web sites. Any reporter wanting to understand what's happening prior to filing their next story on the topic could discover this with about 15 minutes work - but we're going to make it even easier and do it for them. First: no units are going to Iraq that weren't already planning on going. Troop rotation plans for most of 2007 were revealed in this November DoD announcement: For Operation Iraqi Freedom, the major units announced today are:What had yet to be determined officially was exactly when those troops would deploy. For most, late spring/early summer was the working plan. Likewise, their exact destination within Iraq was "for planning purposes only". For some (not all) it's now Baghdad, and sooner. While not all those units will "surge", only one of the "surge" units is missing from that list - but that unit surged before the surge was cool. Brigades of the 82nd Airborne are America's "stand by" force, with one of the four always ready to deploy on short notice. For the 2nd Brigade that notice came on December 27, with little fanfare. The 82nd Airborne Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team received orders today to deploy to Kuwait in early January to become the theater command's "call forward" force, Defense Department officials announced today.And replace them they did. But the Marines weren't coming home - they had already moved into Iraq the month before: The amphibious group moved into the Persian Gulf so the Marines could become the reserve force for Army Gen. John Abizaid, commander of the U.S. Central Command, who is responsible for Iraq and Afghanistan.Then came the announcement of "The Surge": DoD Announces Force AdjustmentsAnd there you have it. Some troops already tapped to deploy will now go a few months early. Some troops in country will stay late. No troops will move into Iraq who weren't already scheduled to go to Iraq. So is "The Surge" a simple numbers game, a bit of sleight of hand to make it appear we're doing something that we aren't? No - there will be a real increase in troop numbers in Iraq - especially combat troops and especially in Baghdad - until such time as the units currently in Iraq (and extended as part of the surge) start coming home. And that is "The Surge". While naming it provides something "tangible" to oppose, if there was some way to "stop it" - short of withdrawing immediately from Iraq - the same troops would go to Iraq, ...just on their normal schedule and in time to hive-five the folks they will replace instead of reinforce. Those newly arrived troops will be completely up shit creek, of course, as no one in Iraq is going to take them at all seriously.That's assuming not too much damage has already been done with the political grandstanding of the past week. Meanwhile, lost amid the hoopla surrounding those press conferences scheduled at half-hour intervals Casey: First Additional U.S. Troops Arrive in Baghdad to Support New PlanFor those interested in keeping up with all this in the future, I recommend frequent visits to MilBlogs - we tend to track this stuff rather closely over there. Additional reading: Don't confuse the 'surge' with the strategy, from Small Wars Journal. Posted by Greyhawk / January 20, 2007 6:01 PM | Permalink 2 TrackBacks21 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
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.
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:
See here, including comments.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'm with you there. It's why I was opposed to the surge before it was announced. But in that announcement the CinC said we will be operating without "restrictions" that previously held us back. I'm hoping that translates into exactly what you said.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.