Twenty Thousand Troops

Alarmed that Daddy and the Democrats were going to take away his war, Junior threw a tantrum. Simon Tisdall reports for The Guardian,

President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make “a last big push” to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration’s internal deliberations.

Mr Bush’s refusal to give ground, coming in the teeth of growing calls in the US and Britain for a radical rethink or a swift exit, is having a decisive impact on the policy review being conducted by the Iraq Study Group chaired by Bush family loyalist James Baker, the sources said.

Although the panel’s work is not complete, its recommendations are expected to be built around a four-point “victory strategy” developed by Pentagon officials advising the group. The strategy, along with other related proposals, is being circulated in draft form and has been discussed in separate closed sessions with Mr Baker and the vice-president Dick Cheney, an Iraq war hawk.

Point One calls for increasing U.S. troops levels in Iraq by as many as 20,000 soldiers. Point Two is about regional cooperation and asking for help from U.S.-friendly Middle Eastern nations like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Point Three calls for reconciliation among Sunni, Shia, etc. And finally —

Lastly, the sources said the study group recommendations will include a call for increased resources to be allocated by Congress to support additional troop deployments and fund the training and equipment of expanded Iraqi army and police forces. It will also stress the need to counter corruption, improve local government and curtail the power of religious courts.

Haven’t we all been talking about all these “points” since 2003? Is there anything new here? Or isn’t this the same old non-plan, just kicked up a notch?

Are not points three and four goals instead of plans? I can just see Junior slapping his knee and saying, “I know! We’ll get the Sunni and Shia to reconcile!” No problemo. Put it on the to-do list, and it’s as good as done.

Tisdall continues,

“You’ve got to remember, whatever the Democrats say, it’s Bush still calling the shots. He believes it’s a matter of political will. That’s what [Henry] Kissinger told him. And he’s going to stick with it,” a former senior administration official said. “He [Bush] is in a state of denial about Iraq. Nobody else is any more. But he is. But he knows he’s got less than a year, maybe six months, to make it work. If it fails, I expect the withdrawal process to begin next fall.”

The “last push” strategy is also intended to give Mr Bush and the Republicans “political time and space” to recover from their election drubbing and prepare for the 2008 presidential campaign, the official said. “The Iraq Study Group buys time for the president to have one last go. If the Democrats are smart, they’ll play along, and I think they will. But forget about bipartisanship. It’s all about who’s going to be in best shape to win the White House.

The official added: “Bush has said ‘no’ to withdrawal, so what else do you have? The Baker report will be a set of ideas, more realistic than in the past, that can be used as political tools. What they’re going to say is: lower the goals, forget about the democracy crap, put more resources in, do it.”

A month ago, we were being told that James Baker’s Iraq Study Group would recommend narrowing U.S. goals to stabilizing Baghdad and reaching a political accommodation with the insurgents so that troops levels could be reduced. But a funny thing happened on the way to the accommodation.

Monday, President Bush met with the Iraq Study Group. On Tuesday, Bush launched an “internal policy review” separate from the ISG. And today we’re hearing that the ISG is considering a plan more to Bush’s liking.

I mostly agree with rightie blogger Rick Moran (yes, hell did freeze over) on what’s going on here.

In effect, Bush has co-opted the ISG and forced them to concentrate on “a strategy for victory” rather than “phased withdrawals” and timetables.” …

… Bush has altered the Commission’s deliberations and changed its dynamic by engaging the bureaucracy in a long delayed (too long?) review of Iraq policy from which these recommendations have sprung. Baker’s group had little choice but to incorporate them into their report or risk being shunted to the sidelines in the policy debate.

Of course, it’s also probable Baker (or somebody) was “leaking” shit prior to the midterm elections to make people think Bush was about to change his policy. We have no way to know what options the ISG really was considering.

The ISG’s apparent shift, assuming it is a shift, happened so quickly that Sidney Blumenthal’s most recent column is already outdated. He wrote that the neocons were moving to “confound” Baker and the ISG so that troops would not be withdrawn from Iraq. It appears they won already.

By some non-coincidence, yesterday Gen. John P. Abizaid told the Senate that the phased troop withdrawals being proposed by Democratic lawmakers would be bad. However, staying doesn’t seem to be an option, either —

General Abizaid did not rule out a larger troop increase, but he said the American military was stretched too thin to make such a step possible over the long term. And he said such an expansion might dissuade the Iraqis from making more of an effort to provide for their own security.

“We can put in 20,000 more Americans tomorrow and achieve a temporary effect,” he said. “But when you look at the overall American force pool that’s available out there, the ability to sustain that commitment is simply not something that we have right now with the size of the Army and the Marine Corps.”

Hmm, had Gen. Abizaid given that 20,000 figure to Bush or to whoever is doing the “internal review”? Did Bush decided that if he could get a “temporary effect” by sending another 20,000 troops he’d take it just to buy time? Because he is not going to withdraw from Iraq, no matter what. Not now, not in six months, not in two years. His ego is on the line, people.

You might recall that Senator John McCain has been making noises about sending more troops to Iraq. Today the editorial board of the Seattle Post-Ingelligencer published an open letter to the Senator (emphasis added):

Dear senator:

Sending in another 20,000 U.S. troops is the solution in Iraq? This is 2006, not 1966. The U.S. has had its seminal experience with what was euphemistically dubbed “escalation” in the Vietnam War. The Vietnam Memorial is notable for its chronological growth, with the names of American dead etched in walls that grow in height with each passing year of that conflict.

Perhaps your choice of arguing for an approach in Iraq supported by a mere 16 percent of the voters is your way of trying to regain your maverick status. Well, there’s maverick and there’s just plain loco.

See also Think Progress, “General Abizaid Smacks Down McCain’s Plan To Send More U.S. Troops To Iraq.”

I want to go back to what the unnamed official told Simon Tisdall — “If the Democrats are smart, they’ll play along, and I think they will. But forget about bipartisanship. It’s all about who’s going to be in best shape to win the White House.” That the posturing of politicians in Washington requires flushing away lives, and that “smart” people should think this is OK, is beyond obscene. And if Democrats do “play along,” this will mean they didn’t get the memo the voters just sent them. The BooMan writes,

You know, there is a certain breed of American that simply can’t get over the fact the American people gave up on the great experiment in Vietnam and that Congress pulled the plug on the project. They happen to be in charge of our foreign policy at the moment, which is a bit of a disappointment for patriotic Americans that kind of care about the direction, financial well-being, and international reputation of our country.

The midterm elections were kind of unambiguous when it comes to what the American people think about and hope for our great experiment in Iraq. And, you know, you go to war with the electorate that you have, not the electorate that you might wish that you have. And anyone that refuses to acknowledge that the electorate doesn’t buy into the idea that we need to continue to roll wheelbarrows of cash and promising lives into the quicksand pits of Iraq in order to fight them over there instead of in the trailer parks off our interstate exits here…well…they are just fighting Vietnam all over again.

I don’t care how great the ratings are for Fox News, the American people will eventually smell a bill of goods when it is held under the nose until the putrefaction is unmistakable.

I think the enormous majority of Americans will perceive the “20,000 troops” gambit as foot dragging, and any politician fool enough to support it is in for another thumpin’ in 2008.

We didn’t lose Vietnam because the populace lost interest. The populace lost interest because they realized they were being lied to and that the reasons we were there were different from the reasons we had been told. They lost interest because the strategy was fatally flawed and that there was no prospect that escalation would ultimately change the losing dynamics. It was a tragedy of epic proportions. So is Iraq.

Yes, as Steve Gilliard explains.

So, boys and girls, what have we learned today? We learned that the ISG is not going to produce some elegant solution to Iraq that everyone in Washington can sign off on while they hold hands and sing “Kum-by-yah.” We learned that if Daddy and his friends were trying to take Junior into hand and make him mind — they failed. We learned that some politicians in Washington have no more regard for the lives of U.S. troops and Iraqis than chopped spinach.

Next, we’re going to find out if the new Democratic majority in Congress has any more spine than the old soft-shelled minority. And we’ll learn if Congress will exert its constitutional authority and put an end to Junior’s warmongering.

Update:Family Feud: Little Bush Hits Back at Daddy

8 thoughts on “Twenty Thousand Troops

  1. Is there any logic to push forward a litany of investigations in hopes of finding enough embarrassing things that the administration will cave? Obviously there are priorities, but doing one would seem to resolve the other more quickly.

  2. Using their “discretionary” war for votes? Where have I heard that before? Of course they are. And have been. There is only one thing the Bushists do well: manufacture votes. Graft, Oil and Politics. That is why we are in Iraq (and except for the oil, a large part of the reason a Democratic president went into Vietnam and a Republican president stayed in through his re-election).

    It is beyond obscene. It is monstrous. Our soldiers are killing and being killed, wounding and being wounded (in both head and heart), undergoing the hell on earth of repeated tours of terrifying combat, just so the AWOL, Vietnam-dodging cowards can cadge a few more votes from the sheeple they have conned with lies and videotape.

    I have not even mentioned the unnatural disaster this has inflicted on the innocents in Iraq. I’m sure the Bushists don’t give a Rovian rat fuck about them. And as for our GIs and Gyrenes, they are no more than expendable campaign props. (Body armor? We go to war with what we’ve got.)

    Obscene, yes. Monstrous, yes. In the annals of our Republic, perhaps the most obscene and monstrous betrayal ever perpetrated by a regime in Washington. Oh, and another thing, it is also imperatively impeachable. It is long past due that Junior and Dick the Gibbous should begin to pay for their string of willful failures as men, as Americans, and as putative members of the human race.

    Do not look at them as if they were ordinary politicians. Do not go break bread with them, chuckle at their mild self-deprecations. Sure, all politicians are shameless. But they are totally without shame. They are neither ordinary people or ordinary politicians. If ye would know them by their deeds, know that their deeds are monstrous. And that they are monsters.

    If they are ordinary politicians, we are doomed as a nation and a people. Manipulation, media bias and outright fraud, a corrupt Supreme Court majority, all those factors and more can be cited as excuses for their taking power. But it was we the people who put them within striking distance. To redeem ourselves, to redeem our democracy, we must see that they pay for their outlandish crimes.

  3. Meanwhile, in the real world as Simon Jenkins reports,

    For the moment, denial still rules. In America last week I was shocked at how unaware even anti-war Americans are (like many Britons) of the depth of the predicament in Iraq. They compare it with Vietnam or the Balkans – but it is not the same. It is total anarchy. All sentences beginning, “What we should now do in Iraq … ” are devoid of meaning. We are in no position to do anything. We have no potency; that is the definition of anarchy.
    From all available reports, Iraq south of the Kurdistan border is beyond central authority, a patchwork of ganglands, sheikhdoms and lawlessness. Anbar province and most of the Sunni triangle is controlled by independent Sunni militias. The only safe movement for outsiders is by helicopter at night. Baghdad is like Beirut in 1983, with nightly massacres, roadblocks everywhere and mixed neighbourhoods emptying into safe ones. As yesterday’s awful kidnapping shows, even a uniform is a death certificate. As for the cities of the south, control depends on which Shia militia has been able to seize the local police station.

    The Iraqi army, such as it is, cannot be deployed outside its local area and is therefore useless for counter-insurgency. There is no central police force. There is no public administration. The Maliki government barely rules the Green Zone in which it is entombed. American troops guard it as they might an outpost of the French Legion in the Sahara. There is no point in patrolling a landscape one cannot control. It merely alienates the population and turns soldiers into targets.

    To talk of a collapse into civil war if “we leave” Iraq is to completely misread the chaos into which that country has descended under our rule. It implies a model of order wholly absent on the ground. Foreign soldiers can stay in their bases, but they will no more “prevent civil war” than they can “import democracy”. They are relevant only as target practice for insurgents and recruiting sergeants for al-Qaida. The occupation of Iraq has passed from brutality to mere idiocy.

    But Georgie-boy will play with his toy soldiers for quite a while yet. (I blogged on this article earlier, here.)

  4. I wish xpara did not sugar coat things like that. I do not think McCain has any real belief that 20,000 more troopps will be committed. In the first place it is pretty clear that there are not 20,000 more troops available. More importantly, the guy desperately wants to be president and it helps him in the primaries to say he wants to send more troops, but he would be DOA in a general election if more troops were sent because he and every other sentinent being on this planet knows that 20,000 more troops will not do anything but prolong the inevitable–a full scale fight to the death between Shia and Sunni. The good old Saudis who keep breeding terrorists and have been paying off Bush to keep the Shias at bay are going to come face to face with watching their bretheren get slaughtered big time and the rise of Iran as the dominant regional power. Maybe they will actually second guess some of their past decisions. The bottom line is that we will make a deal with Iran and Sryia. They will not honor the deal, but then neither did Hanoi. Nobody ever blamed Nixon just the Democrats although as many Americans died under Nixon’s watch as Johnson and Kennedy’s and Nixon was the one who made the “honorable” exit which lead to the fall of the South.There is a reason why the Iraq commission does not have anybody on it who knows squat about Iraq–it is all about politics. How can we get out without destroying Dumbya and the GOP? Dumbya is not in control and neither is Cheney. The elections give the GOP the cover to cut and run and blame the Democrats and that is what will happen.

  5. Pingback: The Mahablog » The Other “I” Word

  6. “President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make “a last big push” to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration’s internal deliberations.”

    “Addressing Congress yesterday, General John Abizaid, the top US commander in the Middle East, ………argued against extra troops, saying US divisional commanders believed more pressure needed to be put on the Iraqi army to do its part.”

    I can’t find the exact quote or quotes which we have all heard from King George that the commanders on the ground call the shots and make the determinations about troop levels. I DO hope that some alert correspondent asks George WHY he is ignoring the top US commander in the Middle East.

    BTW – Nice comment Swami; did you major in sarcasm and irony?

  7. What can I say terry? Except that I’ve become temperate in mine old age. And you are right on about “Punk” John McCain, that old one-time rapscallion, now Bush-embracing pseudo-maverick who funked his chance to be a leader when it counted.

Comments are closed.