Frist?

Has any maroon posted "frist" yet?

Talk about a slow-motion train wreck -- and Bush just keeps putting more people in the train.

biff: just you, biff.

dude, do you have a comment to post that is pertinent to te subject at hand?.

kevin...thanks for the remarks at the end intended to head off the trolls, although they will still post their silly mindless crap...

on the topic: damn...why didn't anyone listen to us when we were saying that toppling saddam was a STUPID IDEA?

we shouldn't have done this. I was SCREAMING "PLEASE DON'T DO THIS."

now people are asking ME what we should do NOW?

i don't have a frickin clue.

why did this have to happen?

WE ARE NOW THE ENEMY.

(sigh)

-neal in long beach

Was it fuckwit Hadley who said that the best plan was to make sure this plan worked? Or was it some other similiarly assnine comment?

Actually, it was probably Bush who said this would work because it had to.

Hey don't forget this one:

"The soldiers have given up because the Defeatocrats have convinced the country to give up on them!"

That mixes and matches a few those.

What do these grunts on the spot know? You have to be in Washington to see the Big Picture.......I beat the trolls.

Where the hell do they find people like Stephen Hadley and Condi? They have to be some of the biggest jackasses on the planet.

"Just be sure you have a backup position in a few months when it turns out he was right."

backup position? since when did these neoconners need a backup position? just resort to flag-waving bravado and traitor-baiting. seems to eternally work for the eternally brain-dead. hard to beat an opponent with an unwavering 30% constituency.

Military commanders carefully monitor such feedback, both formal and informal. It is an essential part of maintaining fighting ability. Such disheartening views can reflect reality or they might reflect a localized situation based on poor morale. The military distinguishes between poor morale and poor esprit de corps (unit cohesion). Soldiers can operate effectively even with poor morale, so long as it does not affect unit cohesion.

For the commander, the questions to investigate are both difficult and critical:

Do the complaints reflect overall reality or are they the product of limited perspective?

Do the complaints reflect localized poor morale or do they reflect something more dangerous to unit integrity?

If reality, are measures being taken to improve things? If not, what measures should be taken to improve things?

Even if true, are there other effects and processes at work that are simply not visible at the small unit level?

Something else to consider. Inevitably, fatigue comes into play, even if unit cohesion remains high. No matter how motivated or effective, the troops have to have something to look forward to besides some version of Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War." The truth is that even a righteous or necessary war can be lost. That doesn't remove the commander's duty to do his best to win it.

The basic problem here is that the incentives are all fouled up. The Iraqis don't believe in their country (which after all was a very stupid contrivance of the British after WWI that literally blew up in the face of the Brits), they doubt its capacity for unity, and the different ethnic groups have very different opinions on the way oil and other revenues should be distributed.

Without a sense of communal unity in the country, the Social Contract concept for Iraq is just too frayed-- people don't want to "invest" long-term in Baghdad because they doubt its viability as a coherent entity. As a result, little surprise, the reigning philosophy among those with power in Iraq is, "I'd better get now while the gettin's good and there's riches I can skim off."

That's what's made Baghdad into a Free Fraud Zone for so many Iraqi police and officials, and outside contractors and Coalition members alike.

So long as this corruption coexists alongside murderous militias in the Iraqi police and government, opportunistically using the security forces to steal from the public trough and persecute their sectarian and other enemies, there won't be public trust in Iraq's institutions, and tribal entities and insurgent groups will continue to draw the most support there.

That IMHO is one of the most important factors in driving the festering mess that's fueling the insurgency against the USA: If the Iraqi people can't trust the Iraqi government and security forces, they'll never put down their weapons, and they'll see the Americans and British as mere collaborators trying to get the oil. This naturally inspires nationalist sentiment, and people unify to toss out the hated invaders. The US has been foolishly complacent for far too long in allowing the infiltration of the Iraqi security forces with militias, and so long as this continues, there won't be improvement of our situation in Iraq.

Just be sure you have a backup position in a few months when it turns out he was right.

My backup position is that Congress will pass the requisite resolution to bring the troops home as soon as it is clear that the plan is not working.

Bush's plan would halt the bloodshed only temporarily.

As long as Bush's plan halts the bloodshed temporarily, Congress will not pass the requisite resolution to bring the troops home. If the temporary success is prolonged from a month to two months, and then to four months, Congress will allow the Bush plan to continue.

the lack of Iraqi public support,

After the Bush plan succeeds temporarily, as the sources seem to suggest, the Iraqis will find that they like the absence of the complex sectarian violence. Then they will be nonsupportive of the most violent people; the sects will continue to separate, but in a less bloody manner. At least, that is about the last slim optimistic possibility.

The president will be allowed only this one final Friedman unit to succeed.

The whole "surge" plan was just Bushco showbiz, obvious from the start. Jeez,adding 20,000 troops, not even back up to previous troop levels? For a short period.

Our national leadership is evidently incapable of thinking outside their little bubbles, of even minimal effort to take the perspective of the other side. Any perspective one might try on, Shii'a, Sunni, Kurd, one ends up at the reality that 1) a sufficient number of Iraqis don't WANT the Iraq we have set up for them, leading to chaos and violence for all; and 2) the Iraq we have set up leads to increased Iranian control in the region and US participation in Shi'a led ethnic cleansing of Sunni, 3) everyone will just wait until the US pulls out.

The American foot soldiers know this. It's a mess in Iraq and the surge is a joke.

Which leads me to my main observation: How you define a problem determines its solution.

When the problem is defined as suppressing or defeating the "insurgents" or stabilizing the existing government (as Bushco have done) the solution is to strengthen the government of Iraq, AKA take a side in the Shi'ia ethnic cleansing of Sunnis and, ultimately, hand Iraq over to Iran (or going to war with Iran to suppress or defeat Iran.) This can only lead to increased Muslim extremism and hatred of America.

Defining the problem in this way leads directly to the arguments we are having now. On the right, the Repubs: We must increase troops levels to suppress the insurgents. We must attack Iran to try to prevent their influence. On the left, the Dems: We must pull our troops out now. Let the Middle East duke it out on their own.

A different approach would redefine the problem. For example, we might define the current problem as how to prevent three ethnic groups from killing each other ( which increases Muslim extremism and hatred of America). This different definition suggests other solutions, perhaps a three state partition (difficult though that would be to accomplish.)

This isn't meant glibly, but how do we avoid being accused of promoting ethnic cleansing unless we wait for the Iraqis to decide on partition themselves?

Lassiter's talking to army guys - they don't count. Marines would never talk like that, they don't care if the mission is feasible just so long as they get to wax a few bad guys and blow some shit up. If Bush was really serious about this surge leathernecks would be leading the charge - ergo the surge is not real. Figure it out.

Bush's "plan", if you can call it that, is predicated on two false assumptions, namely: (1) There is a functioning central government in Baghdad - there isn't. And, (2) The U.S. can still win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people - we can't. That window of opportunity disappeared about three years ago, with Paul Bremer's mindless de-Baathification orders and dismantling the Iraqi army, which created 100,000+ disenfranchised, as well as well-trained and heavily armed men that want to kill us. Paul Bremer should have received a life sentence in an American prison, instead of the Medal of Honor.

Their backup plan will be: "A few more months."

kevin: Just be sure you have a backup position in a few months when it turns out he was right.

as josh marshall points out...

the neocons like to "push the chaos outwards"..

so...

the back up position is to create..

another flaming bag of turds...

creating their own reality...remember..

they won't stop on their own...

think 5-year old...cookie jar...

where are the adults?

:) good!!!

backup position - History Shmistory. The important thing is that we succeed in our ongoing war against Iran and destroy its weapons of mass destruction.

backup position II - Oceana has always been at war with West Asia.

Ah, Kevin.

So it's your contention that "almost every foot soldier" disapproves of the surge. What does almost mean? Who was asked?

What statisticle methods were used to estimate this? How were the questions phrased? What sampling size? Were they leading questions.

Sounds like another skewed liberal poll, if not outright made up.

The counter-insurgency manual that General Petraeus wrote says we need a minimum of 20 counterinsurgents for every 1000 inhabitants. That means we would need 148,000 to secure Baghdad alone. If, as in the past, confronting the Iraqi resistance is like squeezing a balloon, and securing Baghdad just pushes them somewhere else, we would need 540,000 counterinsurgents to secure all of Iraq.

Army standards call for 1.25 support troops for every combat soldier. Combining this with the counterinsurgent troops brings the total soldiers needed just for Baghdad to 333,000, or more than twice the number of troops the entire "coalition of the willing" has in Iraq now.

Tell me again how 21,750 troops will accomplish this? It looks like General Shinseki understated the problem.

Kevin: Just be sure you have a backup position in a few months when it turns out he was right.

Gay marriage! Flag burning! Abortion!

Kevin: "And a note to the dead-enders: ... Just be sure you have a backup position in a few months when it turns out [Tom Lasseter] was right."

Kevin, they bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash.

As others have said, the US president continually describes the Iraqi government as having national unity, and this is so absurdly far from the truth. It has not worked with the US to end the violence, and it will likely not be able contribute to stablilizing the country. One wonders how this will miraculously change in a few months...my heart breaks for the soldiers who have to deal with it up close and personally. Many will likely lose their precious lives.
The tragedy is that Cheney/Bush are already able to push on with broadening their war agenda.

Well, here's another card in the Bush house of cards that is about to fall:

Pakistan.

A few months ago, folks on this blog were asked to think Iran.

You responded.

Now, think Pakistan, too.

What do these grunts on the spot know? You have to be in Washington to see the Big Picture.......I beat the trolls.

No, apparently the big picture can only be seen in Egbert's basement, looking through the internets.

It's interesting - Libs only care what the troops say if it fits into the Libs' anti-Bush prejudice.

Absolutely, Bert. Pakistan is a much larger, more dangerous threat than Iran. In fact, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are living comfortably there now, plotting their next attack. These clowns in the Bush Administration are so pathetic at assessing risk and managing international relations, they can't even see the coming shitstorm when Islamist radicals take over Pakistan from Musharraf and have a ready-made nuclear arsenal at their disposal.

By the way, George, how is A.Q. Khan doing with his house arrest? We really taught him a lesson for proliferating nuclear weapons, didn't we? By the way, is he having tea regularly with Osama, Zayman and Mullah Omar?

These idiotic Bushies could fuck up a wet dream, for Gods sake...

Ah, egbert.

It's good to see that you're on your way to Iraq right now to show us the Real-Truth®. And Frequency Sportsfan will be right beside you, protecting your backside. That will really stick in the collective craw of all those liberals who previously questioned your manhood.

In fact, you've inspired Jonah Goldberg to up his Tae Bo to twice-a-month, so he can shed those extra pounds and get to Baghdad this year.

Surge, egbert, surge!

Those people have backup positions for their backup postions. It's CYA, Baby! At all hazards, CYA.

"It's interesting - Libs only care what the troops say if it fits into the Libs' anti-Bush prejudice."

Spot on, Freqency Kenneth!

Question: Why are libs so fruity?
Anser: Because their always cherry-picking. ROTFLMFAO!

How about we here from all the soldiers now who support the President? Watch out for the avalanche of responses! There's your "almost every foot soldier.

The neo-cons say "the oil revenues have to be shared with the Sunni's ". Maliki knows if he does this the Sunni's WILL USE THAT MONEY TO FUEL THEIR INSURGENCY! After 30 years of abuse by Saddam and the Sunni's, the Shia will never make nice with them. What part of that equation doesn't Bush, Cheney, Gates, Hadley, Rice,and the Weekly Standard crowd get? Why does this seem clear by 70% of the USA, but not the idealogues in the 30% minority. Say goodbye to the GOP.

I really want to write a witty answer to egbrains inane postings but the more I think about it would I waste any time arguing with a 3 year old about the vagaries of the stock market. Hell no. But I won't hesitate to correct bad spelling. Statistical is not spelled like testicle you idiot.

"Well, here's another card in the Bush house of cards that is about to fall:

Pakistan."

Proof? Or is this just more lefty fantasy thinking?

OT, but anybody know how Norman Rodgers is doing with his basic training?

Gandalf: My witty response to egbert was to correct he spelling of "hear" in this sentence: How about we here from all the soldiers now who support the President?

But then I realized that he actually meant for all the supporters to go to "here" which I assume is his basement and can easily hold the 3 or 4 who still support the President.

I hope everyone realizes that "Trolls" are not asking for rational discussion or argument, they just want the attention. Don't respond, they go away.

Please, don't feel the trolls.

We don't know if Paksitan is going to fall, but would it really be a shock? You roil the Middle East in sectarian conflict - a "realignment" as Condi helpfully suggests - and shit happens. This is the latest talking point. We should just let them have their regional war!

Egturd and other pseudo-conservatives don't care as long as W gets to play Napoleon.

I suspect that the Surge has little to do with stabalizing Iraq. It is all about trying to hold on when all hell breaks loose when the bombs drop on Iran. We can be sure just as our military is planning targets in Iran, Iran is calculating exactly where our most vunerable points are. You can count on the fact that the green zone in Bagdad will be a major target.

Stablizing Iraq in my mind has never been the goal. The goal has been to keep it destablized enough so that the Iraq people never can control the oil under their feet. By keeping all oil in the ground the world market for oil and its price is much more easily controlled.

That means we would need 148,000 to secure Baghdad alone. If, as in the past, confronting the Iraqi resistance is like squeezing a balloon, and securing Baghdad just pushes them somewhere else, we would need 540,000 counterinsurgents to secure all of Iraq.

They do not all have to be Americans, and there is likely to be no problem of insurgency in the Kurdish region (the problem there is different.) The plan is for 500 or so Americans to coordinate with 2,000 or so of the Iraqi army in their efforts in Baghdad. Adding 20,000 or so Americans to the Americans already in Baghdad, and coordinating with Iraqi army in the ratio of 4:1 gives the raw numbers; the problem with the raw numbers is that many of the Iraqi units do not perform well. If the overall level of performance of the Iraqi soldiers does not improve (as always, the reports on this are conflicting), then those numbers are not sufficient.

The big event yesterday was a suicide bomber who carried his bomb in a truck with produce, into a large market. Who wrote the book on how to deal with an insurgency led by suicide bombers? How many soldiers and police are required to inspect every vehicle and pedestrian for an explosive suicide bomber?

The soldiers quoted by Lasseter believe that the success of the surge can be only temporary. Do they believe that it can at least be temporarily successful? Almost everybody who opposes Bush uses some qualifier. The resolution introduced by Russ Feingold proposes to leave a small number of American soldiers in Iraq to provide security. So what is small? If 160,000 American soldiers constitute a force that is "too small", does it follow that 160,000 American soldiers constitute a "small force"? If so, Feingold's resolution hardly calls for anything at all. If there is an actual "temporary success", does that imply that the best policy is to build on the success and prolong it; or does that imply that the best policy is to take advantage of the success and get out while it's easy? The American forces were only "temporarily" successful at protecting the independence of South Korea, and they are still there. Had they withdrawn totally a year after the ceasefire, S. Korea probably would have been absorbed by the Chinese-backed N. Koreans.

If there really is a "temporary success", it will be called a "success", and pressure to bring American forces home will probably abate. Is there, in Kevin's post, a subtext that reads "There will not even be temporary success"?

Where the hell do they find people like Stephen Hadley and Condi?

In the bunker, waiting for Army Group Steiner to pierce the Soviet encirclement of Berlin.

He's coming, you know....

PTate in FR For example, we might define the current problem as how to prevent three ethnic groups from killing each other ( which increases Muslim extremism and hatred of America). This different definition suggests other solutions, perhaps a three state partition (difficult though that would be to accomplish.)

al Qaeda will probably hate America no matter what they outcome, whether the Sunnis are prevented from returning to power over Iraq or al Qaeda helps the Sunnis to return to power. Muslim extremism and hate for American didn't arise out of any damage American did to Muslims, and arose in spite of the help Americans gave to Muslims in Afghanistan and the Balkans. Within the U.S., Sunnis and Shi'ites have begun attacking each other, though so far stopping short of murder. Lots of people have proposed partitioning Iraq into cantons, or provinces, or states . That doesn't guarantee that all Iraqis will respect the borders of the cantons, or whatever you may call them. Even with partition, you might have a suicide bomber cross the border checkpoint or get smuggled in disguised as carrying produce.

The White House already gets to define success so the surge will succeed, no matter how many reports of bombings, mortar attacks, hijackings or dead iraqis (hell, they're only Iraqis-it's not like Americans being killed). Sites like this will quote stories of failure but since Kevin doesn't set policy, such apochrypha will be mere musings, wholly without effect.
The surge is another cover story to keep the logistics in place to aid in a strike against Iran. That is until the insurgents launch an attack into the Green Zone and leave half the administrative staff dead or kidnapped to be dead later.
This will go down in history as the most disastrous period in US dealings in the middle East.
We win the battles but go re-read Kipling's poems about the Sudan. Tragedy will come to be defined as Iraq in the early 21st century.

It appears an attempt may be underway by at least a portion of the General Staff to head off military action against Iran. If so, the G.S. appears, as is its wont, to be using retired members as its proxy.

Today, three of our most distinguished generals launched the apparent effort with a letter to the editor arguing that "diplomacy can still win Iran."

Here is what they wrote:

"As former US military leaders, we strongly caution against the use of military force against Iran. An attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences for security in the region, coalition forces in Iraq and would further exacerbate regional and global tensions. The current crisis must be resolved through diplomacy.

"A strategy of diplomatic engagement with Iran would serve the interests of the US and the UK and potentially could enhance regional and international security. The British government has a vital role to play in securing a renewed diplomatic push and making it clear that it will oppose any recourse to military force. The Bush administration should engage immediately in direct talks with the government of Iran without preconditions. There is time available to talk, we must ensure that we use it."

The generals are:

Lieutenant General Robert G Gard Jr
US Army (Ret), Former assistant to the Secretary of Defense, president, National Defense University

General Joseph P Hoar
US Marine Corps (Ret), Former Commander in Chief, US Central Command

Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan
US Navy (Ret), Former Director of the Center for Defense Information and currently Chairman, Military Advisory Committee

Interestingly, their letter was placed in the London Sunday Times and was directed at the role Britain can play in heading off military action against Iran. Could it be that the G.S. feels it has no influence on Iran with the Bush Administration?

Will the generals be heard here and abroad? Or is the G.S. doomed to the same treatment by the Bush Administration and its satraps as was Gen. Eric Shinseki, whose estimates on the number of troops needed in a post-war Iraq were viciously attacked by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz and by the strange and curious British P.M. Tony Blair.

My recommendation: For starters, take a close look at who these generals are before you blithely mouth off about keeping all options open, etc.

MatthewRMarler: The plan is for 500 or so Americans to coordinate with 2,000 or so of the Iraqi army in their efforts in Baghdad.

So all we have to assume is that the Iraqi army will consistently perform better than it has ever performed once. That makes me feel better.

"there is likely to be no problem of insurgency in the Kurdish region"

Don't make that assumption. While Kurds are still the ethnic majority, the region is even less homogenous than it was prior to the invasion, with a lot of Iraqi Arabs relocating there to escape violence in the south.

And as was pointed out last week, there's a referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan at the end of the year, and Sunni Arabs in Kirkuk, among others, are feeling squeezed.

It's interesting - dead enders only care what the troops say if it fits into their pro-Bush prejudice.

fixed it for ya..

This isn't meant glibly, but how do we avoid being accused of promoting ethnic cleansing unless we wait for the Iraqis to decide on partition themselves?

That’s a damn good question and I’m intrigued to realize that it is a question I asked from day one, leading me to say out loud all over the place that we would have to take sides in Iraq, and we all know that the “sides� are ethnic/religous.

I say intrigued because I’m no genius and it baffles me to this day that those on the political right cannot even come close to comprehending such things.

We have, for the most part, taken the side of the Shiites. They are getting most of our military and financial support. Congratulations, America, you continue to play God and take primary responsibility for the death and destruction.

Perhaps I should be more specific: congratulations right-wing-Bush-supporting America.

The ongoing Libby trial illustrates how incompetant big time media reporters are in accurately recording and presenting stories. Kevin illustrates the problem. Lasseter writes that "almost every foot soldier interviewed . . . said . . . Bush's plan would halt the bloodshed only termporarily." He then twists it in plain view to characterize Lasseter as saying "almost every foot soldier thinks the mission in Baghdad is doomed." It is maddening how sloppy media folks are in twisting facts to reflect their bias and/or self interests.

Brian: the stated purpose of the surge is to "get control" of the violence in Baghdad and "secure" Baghdad, however you want to phrase it. The foot soldiers (including the Infantry Lieutenants that Lassiter quoted directly) said that if this worked at all, it would only be temporary.

Therefore, in this case, Kevin has not mischaracterized anything.

jim,

You miss my point. Lasseter wrote about foot soldiers interviewed [which might be in the tens of people] and about whether the halt in bloodshed would be temporary. Kevin mischaracterized it to be "almost every foot soldier [tens of thousands] thinks the mission in Baghdad is doomed [who said anything about doomed? a temporary halt in bloodshet could make the surge a success depending on other political and military developments]." This is just an illustration of sloppinness/bias by Kevin.

Brian,

Your writing 'style' and point of view seem very similar to Egbert's.

You wouldn't be one guy posting under two names would you?

You still have it wrong. What would be temporary, according to the soldiers, is any loss of control by the Mahdi Army over East Baghdad.

anandine: So all we have to assume is that the Iraqi army will consistently perform better than it has ever performed once.

First, the key word is better, as you note. Secondly, it isn't an assumption.

The White House already gets to define success so the surge will succeed, no matter how many reports of bombings, mortar attacks, hijackings or dead iraqis (hell, they're only Iraqis-it's not like Americans being killed).

Success has been defined already. The Congress gets to judge whether success has been achieved, as do the rest of Americans. I don't think any Bush supporters are defining success purely as the end of American casualties.

Marines would never talk like that, they don't care if the mission is feasible just so long as they get to wax a few bad guys and blow some shit up

Well, I suppose that explains why they keep losing.

MatthewRMarler wrote: "Success has been defined already."

Actually, no, it hasn't. It's an ever-changing target and nobody has ever defined it adequately.

"The president will be allowed only this one final Friedman unit to succeed."

We've heard that talk before, for at least the past two years. The war supporters keep adding Friedman's, ad nauseam. How many times are you going to be wrong before you finally accept reality?