Prev | List | Random | Next
Here's how a surge works.
Wednesday morning, the phone rings. “Who the heck is calling at this hour?” As I turn over to reach for the nightstand, I glance at the windows in the room. They’re still dark; no hint of light. And I mutter under my breath, “It’s never good news if it’s dark.” As I reach for the phone, the green numbers on the clock say 5:30. I pick the phone out of its cradle and push the “on” button.Some stay late:
“Hey, Ma.” I mentally calculate, 7:30 Georgia time.
“Hey. Everything OK?”
I just got off the phone with my son. One of the wonders of the modern world is that I can actually talk with my boy even though he is so far away serving his country...The President of Iraq:
My son's tour of duty has been extended for six months. I beg you not to turn your back on him and his fellow soldiers.
‘The ideas announced by the American president, shows a new effort to improve security in Iraq, and they concur and correspond with Iraq’s government plans and ideas...Here's how the enemy responds: What? Already running away!?
Iraqi implementation authority is giving its utmost efforts to get maximum benefit from the new plans laid out by President Bush. We will use these opportunities to speed up the implementation of these new plans for personal security and national stability.
...While we fully understand the importance of security, we are cognizant that any long term improvements in security depend on improvement in the political and economic situations. This can only come about by implementing the national reconciliation plan, and revisiting some of the new laws and constitution. Only then can we have national unity. We are very mindful and grateful for all the efforts and sacrifices of our allies and friends. Ending the sectarian violence is an Iraqi responsibility, while fighting terrorism is a joint responsibility for all. Brining security and stability is in the end the central issue for the Iraqi central government’.
President Talabani thanked President Bush for his continued support and backing for the new Iraq, its political process and its people. Talabani said to President Bush, ‘we are your allies in the war against terrorism and for the success of democracy in the new Iraq. We will not spare any effort or resource to obtain measurable success going forward.
Here's a request from a soldier's mom:
Do not undermine the most difficult thing these military men and women will ever be called upon to do.
The decision to increase the American military presence in Iraq is being greeted with a blend of optimism and anxiety among American soldiers and their families, those most directly affected by the change. Unlike in Congressional corridors and across the civilian landscape of the country, there seems far more support than outrage, more cheer than cheerlessness, and a hope that maybe this will do it.
In Baghdad, Hillary Clinton responds
In an exclusive interview with ABC News in Baghdad, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., called the situation in Iraq "heartbreaking" and said she doubts Congress and the American people believe the mission here can succeed.CNN:
"I don't know that the American people or the Congress at this point believe this mission can work," she said.
KURTZ: Pam Hess, has the sending of 20,000 additional troops gotten a fair hearing in the media or has it gotten caught up in this wrenching, emotional debate about whether the war itself was a mistake?These are issues that make for difficult decisions. But it's easier to be "anti-war" once you've been trained to believe that only George Bush has anything to lose.
PAM HESS: I think it's gotten caught up about it, and the debate about it is actually all wrong. What reporters know and what Martha says is that 20,000 really isn't that big -- isn't that big a jump. We're at 132,000 right now. It's going to put us even less that we had going in going across the line.
What we're not asking is actually the central question. We're getting distracted by the shiny political knife fight. What we need to be asking is, what happens if we lose? And no one will answer that question. If we lose, how are we going to mitigate the consequences of this?
It's so much easier for us to cover this as a political horse race. It's on the cover of "The New York Times" today, what this means for the '08 election. But we're not asking the central national security question, because it seems that if as a reporter you do ask the national security question, all of a sudden you're carrying Bush's water. There are national security questions at stake, and we're ignoring them and the country is getting screwed.
President George W. Bush made clear on Saturday he would not back off his plan to send more troops to Iraq despite bipartisan hostility to the idea and he accused his critics of failing to offer an alternative.Odd that although the plan has "bipartisan support" and "bipartisan hostility" Reuters chooses to acknowledge only the later.
But Reuters' coverage isn't "isolated".
Bush isolated more than ever on Iraq with plan for troop buildupThe Washington Post:
WASHINGTON- President Bush once said he was determined to stick with the Iraq war even if his wife and his dog were the only ones left at his side.
It’s moving in that direction.
Opposition To Iraq Plan Leaves Bush IsolatedThe Los Angeles Times
The bipartisan opposition to President Bush's troop-increase plan has proved more intense than his advisers hoped and has left them scrambling to find support, but the White House is banking on the assumption that it can execute its "new way forward" in Iraq before Congress can derail it.
"We recognize that many members of Congress are skeptical," Bush said in his radio address yesterday, adding: "Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible."
Many Democrats, in fact, have proposed alternatives centered around pulling out troops...
Democrats Feel Free To Defy Bush On IraqThere are two sides in this war. You can't call for defeat of one without simultaneously calling for victory for the other. It's fine to be concerned over the whole "surge" concept - I'm among that number myself. But if you live in the United States or enjoy the protections we afford so many other nations, then you have a stake in this war, and will bear both the unforeseable and predictable consequences of failure. Sadly, too many - perhaps because of those very perceptions of protection here and abroad - feel too much distance from that threat, and can summon adequate "courage" to participate in a simultaneous (and safer, at least as far as immediate likelihood of a participant's physical injury or death) political "war".
Emboldened by President Bush's deeply unpopular proposal to send more troops to Iraq, congressional Democrats are shedding their wariness about tackling the war and embracing positions once primarily held by the party's most liberal fringe.
Less than two weeks after taking power, party leaders who had promised just an increase in oversight hearings on the war are now talking openly about cutting off funds for additional military operations.
The stakes are high in that more genteel battle too, but I fear those who think victory in that sphere will somehow justify defeat in ours are in for a rather rude awakening should they grasp that brass ring of their fondest dreams.
Did anyone look up the definition of surge?
Etymology: earlier, to ride (at anchor) probably in part from Middle French sourgir to cast anchor, land, from Catalan surgir to heave, cast anchor, from Latin surgere to rise, spring up; from sub- up + regere to lead straight; in part from Latin surgere -- more at SUB-, RIGHT
1 : to rise and fall actively : TOSS
2 : to rise and move in waves or billows : SWELL
3 : to slip around a windlass, capstan, or bitts -- used especially of a rope
4 : to rise suddenly to an excessive or abnormal value
5 : to move with a surge or in surges
transitive verb : to let go or slacken gradually (as a rope)
Not sure who used surge first to describe the proposed increase in troops (or soldiers) but they must have meant something like #4 - as everyone has come to think of a surge protector as something that protects your computer.
I hope we aren't just dropping anchor.
Or is there a plan for cutting anchor -
I support the surge as I support the GWOT. It appears that the ROE are changing to maximize the efficiency of our military. Maybe we can take some lessons from the Ethiopian military incursion into Somalia that routed the cowardly Islamic radicals causing mayhem there.
I believe that attacks on the Iranian and Syrian borders actively supporting the Iraq insurgency will save many lives, both civilian and military. When faced with U.S. military might they will run like the cowards they are and the suicidal morons that think they will get 72 virgins and a seat by Allah in paradise will not be missed by anybody except the left wingers of the world.
Take the gloves off and let's finish the job we should have finished long ago and stop pussy-footing around! It will have the added benefit of watching the Left-wing democrats scramble for an excuse for their cowardly behavior.Posted by vet66 at January 15, 2007 03:40 PM
Bush is isolated from the American people on Iraq???
If anyone/anything is isolated from the American people it is the so-called "mainstream media"....an oxymoron if there ever was one.Posted by Piper17 at January 15, 2007 07:28 PM
I guess it's a good thing that the current majority wasn't warming cushy chairs in Congress or our current lot of media hacks filling newspapers during WWII.
If they had, we'd probably be speaking German on the East Coast and Japanese on the Left Coast.
Keep up the fire and see you on the high ground!
MajorDad1984Posted by MajorDad1984 at January 17, 2007 04:43 AM Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(4) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)