http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,120771,00.html?wh=wh
Surge Protector
Frank Gaffney | December 18, 2006
Suddenly, "surge" is the talk of the town. Gone, for the moment at least, is "surrender" - the leitmotif, if not the stated purpose, of Jim Baker's Iraq Study Group. Now, we are told, President Bush is preparing to put substantially more troops in Iraq at least temporarily, as part of a final push to prevail there.
This idea has a certain appeal, particularly to those of us who believe that defeat is not an option. Advocates of more troops have long believed that inadequate U.S. force levels in Iraq have made it impossible to implement a "clear and hold" strategy - the only approach that has proven successful in dealing with insurgencies.
There are, however, several problems with this proposal. The obvious one is that we may not have the additional troops to send to Iraq. Military commanders have long been obliged to reckon with the consequences of predictably short-sighted decisions in the early- and mid-1990s that unduly shrunk our force structure in the interest of cashing in the "peace dividend."
As a direct result, what is left of our armed forces is being sorely taxed by intensive and sustained combat operations in Iraq (and, increasingly, in Afghanistan). Army and Marine units are being cycled through the theater at a rate that is tough on the troops, their equipment, their families, the defense budget and, inevitably, on the all-volunteer force.
Under these circumstances, surging more troops into Iraq on even a short-term basis may be problematic, to say nothing of maintaining an extra 15,000-50,000 soldiers and Marines there for a couple of years time (various options said to be under consideration by the President). Then, there is the further question of whether it will have the desired effect.
Commanders in the field like the top officers in Central Command and Iraq, Generals John Abizaid and George Casey, respectively, have consistently argued in public against further expanding the American footprint in the theater. They believe it not only creates additional force-protection issues - especially when U.S. personnel are assigned hazardous duties involved in securing and patrolling insurgent strongholds. They recognize that an even larger military presence can further exacerbate the perception of many Iraqis that we are an occupying power, intensifying opposition to our efforts in country.
Assuming such logistical and strategic impediments can be satisfactorily addressed, if not easily overcome, there should be one further prerequisite to the idea of adding more forces into Iraq: Call it the "surge protector."
If we are to have a chance of avoiding actions that simply add to the costs - both in terms of casualties and national treasure - associated with our deployments in Iraq, we need to ensure that our enemies will not interpret this as merely a desperate, but necessarily ephemeral, bid to defeat them. They would simply respond by redoubling their efforts, too, with a view to waiting us out and wearing us down.
In particular, all other things being equal, Islamofascist Iran will simply surge its own forces into the fight. Both directly and via their Syrian colony, Iran's regime will be dispatching more terrorists into Iraq. More money will be spent to pay for pro-Tehran militias like that of Muqtada al-Sadr. And more advanced weapons like the Iranian improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that have been killing and maiming Americans with great regularity will be brought to bear against our troops and their Iraqi counterparts.
To mitigate this danger while greatly increasing the chances of success in Iraq, President Bush must include one other component in his new strategy: A disciplined, multifaceted and determined effort to help the Iranian people overthrow their repressive and unrepresentative government.
Early returns in the local elections held in Iran last weekend offer fresh evidence of the restiveness of many Iranians with the bellicose and increasingly dangerous policies of their president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While the regime goes to great lengths to prevent information about domestic ferment from becoming widely known, particularly outside the country, there is little doubt that we have natural allies inside the country who wish to bring down the mullahocracy as fervently as do freedom-loving people elsewhere.
Toward this end, the United States must complement whatever surging of forces it does in Iraq with focused military action against Iran's operatives and operations there, including those that operate politically, ideologically and militarily against Coalition forces and our Iraqi partners. In addition, we must mount a concerted and unrelenting domestic and global media campaign emphasizing Iran's leading role in the global jihad against the Free World and the danger a nuclear-armed Ahmadinejad government would represent.
Not least, we must use political warfare, information technologies and covert operations inside Iran, together with a comprehensive effort to cut off the Tehran regime's cash-flow. This can be done by divesting the stocks of publicly traded companies that do business in Iran and by moving rapidly to exploit available alternative fuel and automotive technologies to diminish the role oil plays in powering this country's transportation sector and those of other nations around the world.
To their credit, President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have already rejected the advice of the Iraq Surrender Group and its former member, newly installed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, to begin negotiating with the Iranian mullahs. Now it is time to take the one step that can conduce to success in Iraq and make any surge of U.S. forces there justifiable: Taking on, and taking down, the terror-masters of Tehran.

There are a few problems with the surge of troops idea:

A. What is the mission, clear and detailed for the troops sake.

B. Sadr needs to be taken out of the equation. Sadr has a loose control over a mob, several ministries within the government and an armed militia. All the soldiers in the standing Army are not going to take this guy out... unless we do it by force. There are other options here that would not involve more troops. This guy has grown from a thorn to a puss filled wound on Iraq.

c. The Justice system is in a termoil. Police and Soldiers need more then just training on tactics; without a firm foot hold for the rule of law. Chaos and the mob will be and is (in some areas) the justice for the day. Ethics, methods, investigation and a lady with the blind fold are concepts that are remote here. More trrops will help little here.

d. Espre de Corps of the Iraqi Army and the Police. All the equipment in the world for these folks will not give them passion for their country. Leadership, positive reenforcement (performance pay, performance based promotion) and negative consequences (rules of law, code of conduct) will do much more then all the body armor and weaponry.... (that will eventually find its way into the black market.) More troops may help a little here.

More troops will give a short term affect of reducing out right violence in key locations and allow for the growth of government, police to take over... but the minute we pull out every soul the carries a badge or works in an office runs scared.

I see a long road for the Iraqis with many roadblocks along the way.

I'd add Iran needs to be told in clearly understandable terms to butt out. Spreading their brand of Islamic revolution to Iraq won't give them the results they seek. Iranians are Persians, the Shiite Iraqis are Arabs; traditionally mortal enemies. Tradition goes a long way in the Middle East.

Ya'll know what I think. So I will spare you my repeating it.

Cnn is just announcing that "W" in an interview at the ranch stated he will support the increase of the number in army and marines. I suspect this is to take the heat off his delay on what to do right now about the shortage/over-stretched units they must work with in the current crisis.

It also has a smell of exploiting the current mess in order to expand the services and those that always think more is better. Maybe so when you have idiots like the neocons pulling the strings.

There goes one of Rummy's tenets out the door, he was one that subscribed to the notion that tech made up for boots.Also
gaffney is not anyone whose opinion I regard as reliable. I have heard him on numerous appearances. Definitely out there on the right winger end of the spectrum in politics.


lenal

I thought we were going to have a Democratic Party controlled Congress for 2007... How is McChimpy going to fight a war in Iran if the People have a mandated Congress providing checks and balances? Seems rather odd to me that McChimpy could do anything but blow his own nose right now...


Or that Democrats are just another name for Republicans...

IMHO...

White is right.

The half-steppin' has been as much a problem as
failing to keep Iraqi soldiers on the payroll at the jump.

Seems I remember Marines takin' Fallujah, then pulling out,
then taking it again, then pulling out. Kinda like taking Hill # whatever
in Vietnam, withdrawing, then taking it again. It ain't about the property,
it's about those who have the closest relationship to the land and
outnumber ya 1,000 to one.

I'm afraid it's all about those who made the mistakes (from invasion to...
well chose your time) still being in denial that their vision is half-assed.
Rather than drawing out militia, cornering and crushing them, it's still
about police work.

Maybe they could take a lesson from The Mob: initiate Iraqis by requiring them to
take actions making them targets of radical death squads (other krews) to assure their loyalty
to your krew. It's all about understanding the mindset, and having the cold, hard will to accept it.
It don't play well in Peoria, but works in gangland. And brothers, Baghdad is gangland.

I'm resigned to the belief that the Middle East can not get better until there
is a change in the White House - some watershed of personality that can impress those
dying to see an end to the chaos. Chaos we have wrought with a neo-con world vision
attemping to "stand tall" on the shoulders of the brave.

Well, I think you might be catching on.

The rhetoric coming out of the democratic party for the past 4 years is unsupportable in reality. Regardless of what you've been told the United States can't "cut and run", "redeploy", or what ever catch phrase is currently popular in regards to the war in Iraq.

The democratic party has achieved what it set out to do, regain control of congress. You won't see much if any change of what happens in the war on terrorism.

Well, then they are not carrying out the will of the people and should be replaced in 2008.

Long over due as far as I'm concerned. They've added 30,000 temperarily after 9/11. They need to make it permenant and then increase it more just to cover ops around the world. I think way to much bean counting is being done on the backs of the military field soldier.

It aught to mean more taxes too. Call it a soldier tax, we've been paying more than just taxes and 'cuse me for being blunt but it's about time some others pony up. It tees me up to see new million dollar view condos going up next to our reserve center where the paint on the walls, the equipment in the yard and weapons in the arms room are older than me and in worse shape.

My two cents.

As far as Gaffney is concerned... anyone that calls Syria a colony of Iran probably also has trouble figuring left from right.

When was the last time the government carried out the will of the people?

Little as you may perceive it different factions in the government shape what your will is.

Funny too how there is very little difference between the parties when it comes right down to it; when you compare them to say a parlimentary form of government that you see.

Where are the communists, socialists, greens?

I thought that Al Jezerah, CNN and Fox shape the will of the people. I like ABC news best they have cooler intro music and better creative use of colors and backdrops....

I like ABC too Top, but it's because not all their girlie reporters are blondes.

Especially on the rich.

When the funding bill is being debated in Congress about the cost of all this, I hope it gets linked to legislation to rescind the tax cuts W dealt to all his pioneers and rangers. Otherwise, no deal.

There is more to global problem solving than taking military action. Let's also link a bill to increase the number of diplomats that would be trained professionally and especially in the languages used in the hot spots of the planet. Quit using diplomatic appointments as political plums, IMO one of the big holdups in Iraq is the inability to communicate. Same thing in intel - remember all those documents piled up that never get translated - you know, the ones Sybil Edmonds talked about.

There is too much emphasis on only military forec. We have wasted enough lived in the ME because we haven't approached the problems on all possible fronts.



lenal

I bet some of you folks would be interested in this as a holiday gift.

It's a HumVee piñata filled with American Soldiers....er..I mean candy.

Slug at it to your hearts content.

With all due respect I don't give a damn how legislation gets cut as long as its done. That's the only deal here. I would see an deal making and pork barrelling as screwing with the training and equipment that will save soldiers lives plain and simple.

Short of holding bake sales at the reserve center and the ever popular 50/50 raffles the coffers are empty. I won't continue cause I don't want to be viewed here as a whinner, we'll make due.

And again with due respect all the diplomats in the world will not assume the patrols in the neighborhoods, man the checkpoints and train the army, police. They do talk up a storm though. The comment about "inability to communicate" is lost on me..... There are enough political leaders, militias, armed gangs, tribal leaders, religious zealots to keep all the diplomats at the UN busy for years to come. On a Strategic level I'm damn sure that negociating with Iran or Syria does not put America in a better place.

I do agree that political appointments to these posts in many cases do a disservice for us.

A bit of clarification on the "inability to communicate" in the previous post.

W's insistence on not farming out more of the training of Iraqi forces to offers by Jordan, Egypt and other arabic speaking countries undoubtedly has been costly in lives lost. Imagine yourself tasked with this assignment and non-existent language capability - of course that has slowed it up, along with the lack of understanding the cultural priorities that the population there has.

No of course, the diplomats wouldn't be patrolling, but they might be capable of preventing the necessity of the military doing so.

Our Department of State is in a sorry state too - some attention surely must be directed there.

Sometimes I assume my meanings will be obvious when they aren't, hence this post.

lenal

:wreath:

I've got this awful feeling in the pit of my stomach that the Democrats "told us what we wanted to hear" to get back in power in congress... Has the American public been used yet again to play the "shell game" with the corporate masters that actually run the government?

Man this discussion takes me back 36 years...

it ain't about combat performance...
it's hypothetical warfare...
pushing tokens around a map board...

if they ain't got the guts to go after the Madi Militia...
balls to the wall...takin' ears and burning caches...
until everyone is livin' in tents and praying for peace...
well then the "strategy" ain't nothin'.

there are no mountains, no jungles, just neighborhoods...

either pull back and let special ops pick 'em off at 300 yards
from under robes and from camoed hiding places...burn
the sucker down...or admit that the whole thing was a mistake
and say: "sorry y'all but we're outta here".

if ya want rules of engagement...propose to a woman...
if ya want victory on a battlefield support the warrior by
having all the "leaders" without a CIB shut the f*ck up
and loose the dogs of war. That doesn't mean we will
find "victory" - but it might mean that the men under fire
can make a statement that they can take to their graves -
either now - or years later.

It ain't the press' fault, the public's fault, nor the "hippies" fault.
Serious miscalculation can only rest with those who sold it,
those who bought it; and, even more so, those who deny it.

Which raises an interesting (to me at least) question:

Even if we were to levy extremely high taxes on the rich (like 90% of income, 50% capital gains), could we take in enough revenue? Or is it like people have told me that the total $$$ just won't be that much?

Any ideas out there?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tAhj26HoFs

If 90% of the wealth of the nation resides within 10% of the population... then it makes sense that taxing those 10% would provide the vast majority of wealth necessary to fund anything the nation wanted to fund.

Makes sense ... except that I wonder if the debt is now too large for even that. (I do not know and MrPie is so angry today after bush's press conference that I dare not ask my resident financial guy. For what it's worth, he is on the same page as Indianhead as far the war goes.)

Indianhead has my profound respect and admiration... I would seek his council regarding issues of war as if my life depended upon it.

Nice Mustach.

Mr 2nd ID

Indeed combat performance means for very little. Every soldier or civilian on the ground is a diplomat. If the President and and the congress want to go around taking out dictators that they do not like then they (we) have to take responsibility for picking up the pieces. (Of course thats my opinion and who am I)

If we are going to lock up individuals for crimes against the state, then there has got to be due process.

I don't think you'll find anyone on this board that thinks that taking on Sadr's Militia head to head is a good idea or to due away with the rules of engagement, and I'm the last person to gage a persons worth by the ribbons they wear.

I'm just expressing frustration; if boots on the ground are going to be the policing the corners of neighborhoods in far off lands the least the government could do is support them.

I got mixed feelings about Sadr and his miltia.

My first reaction is we ought to kill the SOB but if we did it would probaly be the equvalence of checking how full a drum of gasoline is by dropping a lit match in.

I get the suspicion Sadr is the main instigator behind the Shiite death squads. It's sort of late to do but a fitting statement would be for him to share the scaffold with Saddam. Seeing them dangling side by side would be a real message to all concerned instigating violence in Iraq.

Humm.. I think he is the one that lit the match... now he has little control over the bands of armed militia. and it's closer to a free for all then a civil war. He maybe desparate to get a handle on his own "militia". Killing him would do more harm bringing together the fractured groups against us.... negoicating with him may be difficult but he may be in a position now given is loss of control over the mob that may turn on him.

Quote of the day from the average Iraqi: "Iraqi's were glad to be rid of Saddam and are thankful to the US for that; but now we have 50 Saddams running around."

Well, it would be sweet if he tied into an IED with Iranian finger prints on it.

Sergeant White, Gunny;
What would be wrong with this idea floating around that removes us from the immediate premises. The idea where we move back out into the desert, 15 or 20 minutes away from the urban hot spots, where we can react with Stryker’s or APC’s or even quicker response with helo’s when the sheite hits the fan. Wouldn’t the internal factions fight it out for dominance? And then couldn’t we then come along to place the proper influence on the winners? Isn’t it their fight to win or lose, don’t you think it’s time to do just that. What would change if we got just far enough out of the way to let them fight it out? Maybe we could gain the upper hand on who is moving arms around to support this insurgency, and maybe have a little more influence on who’s crossing the borders?
Most of you who have seen some of my posts know my position has been to get out, the sooner the better. Problem now is we’ve let it get to far out of hand. Today my fear would be mass ethnic cleansing by the armed over the civilian populace, a principle we can’t stand by and watch. Especially sense we’ve created most of this fiasco.
The time has come for a solution that frees up most of our good fighters, who presence is going to be required to fight the forgotten war against the Terrorist before they show up in places where they could cause serious damage to our way of life.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122606R.shtml

Biden Vows to Fight Any Iraq Troop Boost
By Anne Flaherty
The Associated Press
Tuesday 26 December 2006

Washington - Sen. Joseph Biden, the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he will fight President Bush if the administration decides to send more U.S. troops to Iraq.

Biden, who has his eye on the Democratic presidential nomination, also warned that if congressional Republicans do not join him in speaking out against Bush that they - not Democrats - will suffer in the 2008 elections.

"I just think it's the absolute wrong strategy," Biden said Tuesday of an increase in troops.

Bush is scrubbing his options in Iraq, after Republicans lost control of Congress in the Nov. 7 elections and an independent bipartisan panel determined Bush's plan was dangerously off track. The Iraq Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, concluded that the U.S. could pull combat troops out of Iraq by early next year. The few troops left behind would be tasked with advising Iraqi units.

While administration officials say all options remain on the table pending Bush's final decision to be announced next month, a surge of up to 30,000 troops is widely considered a favored option by Bush.

Biden said he is interested in the study group's findings and wants to hold a series of hearings on Iraq beginning Jan. 9. Biden said he has asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to testify and she has agreed; the timing of Rice's testimony, however, is not decided. Rice said she would come to Capitol Hill after Bush announces his new plan in Iraq.

In a conference call with reporters, Biden said the purpose of the hearings would be to generate a bipartisan consensus among lawmakers on Iraq and pressure the president to abandon any talk of surging U.S. forces into Baghdad.

"Even with the surge of troops, in a city of 6 million people you're talking about a ratio that would still be roughly above one to 100," Biden said. "It's bound to draw down support that we need in other parts of Iraq, including Anbar province."

Biden, taking advantage of the quiet holiday week to generate media attention by holding a telephone press conference and appearing on CBS' "The Early Show," said he thinks Republicans will have more to lose in 2008 than Democrats if the violence in Iraq continues and U.S. troops remain committed in such large numbers. There are currently an estimated 140,000 troops in Iraq.

"I think we'll only have to accept responsibility for the war if we remain silent," said Biden, who has spoken candidly of his desire to run for president and has made repeated visits in the past year to early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

Biden said he delivered this message in a recent meeting at the White House, where he told Bush: "Mr. President this is your war."

While all this indecision and thoughtful discussion is taking place, Americans are dieing.
The idea of carrying this argument into the next presidential election is perversely wrong, how many more Americans will die in the meantime?

Well Vaughn, you know my position.

If we are not going to fight to win we ought to get out now.

Biden is probably the most disgusting individual to throw his hat in the ring so far. Back before we invaded Iraq he was holding hearings on why Iraq was a threat Bush was neglecting; now he vows to block troop increases to fight the war Bush wants. Biden would make a great character for a weather vane, eh?