There's an awful lot of speculation on what Bush's new plan for Iraq might be. The consensus is that it will take the form of the "go big" option: the so-called "surge."
The details--just how large that surge will be, how long it might last, and what other policies or plans it will be tied into--remain to be seen. The plan is not just a strategic one for Bush and for Iraq, but it presents members of Congress with strategic dilemmas and decisions as well. They not only have to take a position on the merits, but in the time-honored way of most politicians, they have to decide what's in it for them in terms of re-election.
Bush, after all, has been released from that particular consideration. He only needs to take into account his own "vision" and plan for "success" (derided here by Fred Kaplan of Slate); Bush is exempt from serving another term. So, as Kaplan writes, "He's playing for History (most definitely with a capital H), which, he seems convinced, is on his side."
That's for history (or History) to decide. But history isn't written in the present, much as some would like to think it can be. Therefore the Democrats and Republicans trying to decide right now whether to support a surge in Iraq only know what has happened in the past, in distant times and places that may or may not be analogous; try as they (or we) might, they can't foretell the future.
John Keegan, a British writer who specializes in the history of war, opines that a surge could well be helpful in Iraq if it consists of a force of at least 50,000 troops and takes the war to the enemy rather than waging it defensively. Robert Tracinski, a disciple of Ayn Rand and head of The Intellectual Activist, thinks the only worthwhile approach would be to wage war--literal, not metaphorical--against Iran (this option is probably not going to be part of Bush's "go big" plan--he's thinking big, but not that big).
The jockeying for position goes on among members of Congress, with McCain being a major proponent of the "surge" policy, some Democrats (and a few Republicans) such as Biden saying a definite nay, and Democrat Carl Levin, new chief of the Armed Forces Committee, taking a middle, noncommittal, road:
While he would oppose an open-ended commitment, Mr. Levin said, he would not rule out supporting a plan to dispatch more troops if the proposal was tied to a broader strategy to begin reducing American involvement and sending troops home.
The dark shades of Vietnam hover over the proceedings, of course. Those who remember history know that US fighting forces had left Vietnam for several years when the US Congress pulled the financial plug on the South Vietnamese, against the will of then President Ford. Can, and will, there be a repeat?
As Kaplan points out, in this case it would be much more difficult for Congress to accomplish similar ends in Iraq:
...the Democrats are still plagued by the charge that they lost [Vietnam]. If Congress cuts off, or sharply cuts back, funding for the Iraq war, and if things subsequently get worse, who will be blamed in 2008 and beyond? The question answers itself. Purse strings are unwieldy instruments for such purposes, in any case. Few legislators of either party favor a total, immediate pullout from Iraq. Yet even if Congress somehow collectively decided how many troops should be withdrawn or redeployed, and what those left behind should do, it would be another task entirely to translate that decision into budgetary terms—and politically all but impossible to do so while the White House and its supporters sternly warn from the sidelines that the cuts will "hurt the troops."
In Vietnam, it was relatively easy to cut funding to the ARVN. Because Vietnamization had been successfully accomplished, in the sense that there were no more US combat troops there (and had not been for years), Congress's betrayal of the South Vietnamese to their fate was part of a foreign policy appropriations bill, the Foreign Assistance Act of December 1974, which was vetoed by President Ford but overridden and passed by the hugely Democratic Congress of the time.
Since Iraqization is far from complete at the moment, and American combat forces are most assuredly still in Iraq, appropriations for this war don't come under the heading of foreign aid. Any withdrawal of funds would be part of the appropriations for the military as a whole, and that probably wouldn't be a popular stance in this post-9/11 world, even for most Democrats, except those whose constituencies are profoundly and markedly liberal/Left.
And so Congressional leaders who might want to withdraw funds to Iraq and stymie Bush's "go big" plans are in an interesting position, lacking the tools used by their Vietnam-era predecessors--although, if Iraqization were successful, it paradoxically would give Congress the power it had (and exercised) in late 1974, the power to abandon the country for which so many had previously sacrificed, when the cost had shrunk down to a relatively bearable one.
[Cross-posted at neo-neocon.]
Here's the thing, there are a lot of areas that require immediate, decisive attention.
BUT, its too easy to get bogged down in worrying about the details of all of them. We spend entirely too much time planning and focus grouping all this crap and not enough rolling up our sleeves and doing them.
What we need to do now, immediately, instantly, is to embrace Occam's Razor. Our most pressing crisis is a complete breakdown of security and law and order in the streets of Baghdad. Putting many more American troops on the streets of Baghdad is the solution. Dont overthink it, just do it. Stop reinventing the wheel, every day we debate and analyze our situation gets worse. Lets lock down the Capital and then figure out what step 2 needs to be (and step 3-infinity).
Not sure if everyone has seen these videos of the US military in Iraq or not, but they are pretty amazing.
[NM: minorripper, bare links are frowned upon here, as are simple "drive by" posts trying to drive traffic to your site. See the Winds comment guidelines to get a better idea. I fixed the link for you, this time (and copyedited minimally).
We don't shy from controversy here, by any means -- but consider this a warning that your future posts here would be better received if you add value here.
-- Winds of Change Marshal Nortius "Big Tuna" Maximus]
I'm afraid you're probably right that Bush isn't ready to go that big, but I hope you're wrong. I added an excerpt and link to OK, so now can we bomb their asses? --- Update 2
Mark,
What you propose is swatting flies. I think it would be better to bury the manure.
And yes. It is a sh itty job.
I disagree profoundly that Dems lack the means or ability to stop the War by defunding it. IMHO they will defund it very rapidly in the next few months.
Cindy Sheehan turned up at the very first hearing, invited by Conyers it appears, and disrupted Rahm Emmanuel's reform press conference.
THAT writ large (the "peace " aka surrender lobby allied with various loony-left Dems which is most of them) is the story of the political fight in Congress.
Yes of course they'll get what they want -- cutting off funds to "bring the troops home" ... Iraq cut into Al Qaeda, Iranian, and Kurdish pieces and fought over by the nations in the region, and Al Qaeda riding success to take over Pakistan and nuke a few American cities.
Make no mistake, the vote in November was up or down to withdraw or really run away from Iraq and that's precisely what we will get. Running away from Iraq within the next few months.
Really what political fallout could accrue Dems to running away? The Party and Media believes with all it's might that if we just run away and grovel the problems all go away. So they will likely vote and over-ride the veto to defund the troops. [Reps are weak and vacillating, seeing the power of the Media to defeat them]
We will get EXACTLY what Cindy Sheehan and Conyers want. God help us all.
Because Al Qaeda will follow us home (with Pakistani nukes). Say goodbye NYC and LA.
Mark B.
"Dont overthink it, just do it."
Wasn't it this approach that landed us in this mess to begin with?
Didn't we try to break the eternal logjam of the MidEast mess with one big powerful surge, aka invading Iraq, in hopes that "taking action" would somehow, down the road, some day, create a new dynamic that we could use to our advantage?
Wouldn't it have been better to have not taken the Occam's Razor approach?
What if a surge in troops exacerbates the situation rather than alleviates it?
This all seems to me to be an exercise in frustration, frustration & impatience on our part, a "for God's sake DO SOMETHING...ANYTHING"-based action. Coupled with a refusal to understand or see what effect our actions have upon the thoughts and actions of others and a belief that we can bend the will of others if our will is strong enough...as though theirs is not just as strong.
How about we stop awarding exhorbitant and uregulated contracts to private companies that are profiteering from the war?
I know this issue tears your little conservative hearts in two, but it's time to stand up together and oppose the huge wastage of taxpayer money in Iraq.
Dems should impose a temporary hold on all new non-military contracts related to the war until they can be carefully reviewed and the moneys accounted for.
i actually agree with Andy on the first 2 paragraphs of his post completely. The third is an unmittigated disaster. Here's a better idea- we need a vice-roy in Iraq with the authority to handle all this personally, and anybody that agrees to a job and doesnt finish it with the correct amount of money should be dragged to the capital dome and hanged. The sooner we start treating this like a war the better. Otherwise get us the hell out of there yesterday.
Andy X:
There are people reading this with greater experience than I, but I am aware of few government construction/development projects that do not have some disputes about cost overruns. Its the nature of the beast when you contract to do something that is supposed to address a number of future contingencies.
The problem is worse when time is of the essence (as in Katrina or foreign wars). If you use the full panaply of checks on spending, then the money simply doesn't get there in time to be useful.
My position on spending in Iraq and Katrina was the same. Cut the red tape. Get the money out there so it can be useful. After its all over, criminal prosecutions for any fraud.
No, we have more recent times in the same city to go by as well. Like say six months ago?
Operation Together Forward
70,000 security forces on the streets of Baghdad, strict curfews, increased checkpoints, raids on suspected insurgents etc.
Doesn't seem to have worked out well.
But then this new plan is more geared for domestic political consumption rather than strategic military goals or Iraqi political consumption.
I disagree with Jim Rockford's disagreement for at least one basic reason: the ambitions of Senators. Each of them thinks about being President and if any of them thinks that Iraq could blow up into a regional mess, they don't want to have to deal with it then. Cindy Sheehan doesn't have to deal with reality. I predict anti-Bush rhetoric and inquisition, but no positive action.
Davebo: this new plan is more geared for domestic political consumption
Has increasing American troops become popular?
PD Shaw,
No, increasing American troops has not become popular, but it will only be a temporary expedient. I'm going to go out on a limb and make a prediction: We "surge" troops, restore something resembling (a temporary) order in Bagdad, declare victory, and go home. Sucks, but that's what the public voted for when Al Quaeda and the Iraqi insurgents won the election in Nov.
I'm more concerned with Bush putting a Squid in charge of a ground war command (and I'm former Navy).
PD --
I believe there is enough evidence to support my assesment:
1. Pelosi's inaguaration declared that "the War in Iraq" was her primary concern / focus and the reason "she won" or words to that effect.
2. The outsized influence that Sheehan and her groups have on the Democratic Party. Particularly as a weapon to be used against the Rahm Emmanuel types.
Don't forget that Sheehan was there due to Conyers, who gave her a big hug after she chased Rahm Emmanuel from the Press conference.
3. The Media's lock-step group think "decision" that the Iraq War was lost, deserves to be lost, and that America's enemies including Al Qaeda are "warm and fuzzy" freedom fighters. One need only look at the fawning and sympathetic coverage of Saddam after his death, or the adoption of Al Qaeda as "freedom fighters" against Global Warming and so on to see this happening.
4. Desire to be President: this requires victory FIRST in the primaries. Which means running not just left but HARD LEFT. Dems victory is a disaster since the Primary voters will see a hard left Pelosi from San Francisco as validation that the nation wants to surrender to Al Qaeda and grovel for it's very existence ... I expect the nominee to be either Gore or Dean, with Kerry and Obama pushing the entire party hard left as well. Heck even Hillary will be running Hard Left. With the media which is hard left cheering them on.
5. Growth in the elitist nature of the Dem Party; in contrast to what looks like a populist resurgence against GWB's followers in the Rep Party. Dems are looking for figures like Pelosi (inherited wealth, married a millionaire, married her children to some other political family I think a Kennedy), while Reps are looking to populist figures like Rudy or even McCain.
Regardless GWB's proposals for reform in the war in Iraq are dead. When voters pulled the Dem lever in November they got (regardless of how it was sold) a quick pullout from Iraq (and let's be honest, Afghanistan as well) and a general surrender to Muslim terror. Until of course the next 9/11 atrocity which contrary to Dem Dogma WILL come particularly after an Iraq and Afghanistan surrender to Al Qaeda and Iran.
Drudge has a breaking story that Reid and Pelosi have sent a letter to the president telling him that surging forces is a failed strategy and that calling for phased redeployment.
This even before Bush has presented his plan. Im sorry, but that is plain politics- they did this to try grabbing the political reigns and stealing Bush's thunder before he can even propose his plan. Things are about to get real ugly.
Its all going to depend on how far Pelosi and co want to push it, and to what degree the moderate dems will go along with this.
If the Republicans had any sense (and they dont) they would be bribing, threatening, and cajoling every democrat in a southern or western state with promises of commercials with video of every fleeing helicopter shot they can come up with in 2008. Hawks need a firewall built now in case Pelosi's power goes to her head (in case? i meant when ) and she tries to cut off funding. That needs to be the Republicans line in the sand.
"Im sorry, but that is plain politics-"
ROFLMAO! What a difference an election, of all things, makes, eh Mark?
Just to be more clear, Mark, yes it's politics (what else would it be? Is that a bad thing?) but it's anything but PLAIN.
It's what most Americans want, and have every right to demand, in a Democracy.
And after reading the first sentence in your last paragraph, I think you are in need of a strong reminder of that yourself.
If this is true, I'm calling and writing to my representatives to make sure they know I support a phased redeployment.
Elections are over but there's still work to do to hold the politicians' feet to the fire. No need for threats or bribes, though.
I must bow my head to Jim Rockford.
Key excerpt from the letter:
Now let us negotiate the terms of surrender, ahem, I mean redeployment.
Oh, no, not the SURRENDER word! RUN, DEMOCRATS, RUN!
Just want to point out that you can't surrender when you don't have a specific goal or enemy to begin with.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED....remember?
Andy, be sure to give an earful of all the other nonsense you believe as well. The more looney tune the Dems think their base is the quicker theyll drive themselves out of office.
If we remove our troops from Iraq in the next 6 months that nation will completely tear itself apart in ways that will make the current violence look like a day at the park, and everyone including Pelosi and Reid know it.
Thats why this is politics. They know full well what they are asking for is as idiotic as it is implausible (witness Andy X's support as all the proof needed for that). The only reason they are doing this is to keep Bush off balance. But this isnt tilting over Social Security. These are real lives. It is craven politics to do something like this for political gain when they dont really believe it the best course. Unless they actaully do in which case god help us all.
"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED....remember?"
What kind of dope do you have to be to treat the president standing under a banner on an aircraft carrier coming into port like its the Treaty of Westphalia? Get over it.
I understand that all liberal thought has to be able to fit on a bumpersticker, but for the rest of us its just repetitive and annoying. Do you grind your teeth at night muttering about Halliburton?
Mark B.
"If we remove our troops from Iraq in the next 6 months that nation will completely tear itself apart in ways that will make the current violence look like a day at the park, and everyone including Pelosi and Reid know it."
This would be a more valid point if there was any reason to hope that the troop surge that, by all accounts, Bush is going to call for would improve our chances of avoiding the catastrohpe that you anticipate AND/OR any reason to hope that Bush is himself capable of conducting the war in Iraq in a manner that might result in anything other than the catastrophe that you anticipate.
How many opportunities should we give this man to dig a deeper hole for us?
"How many opportunities should we give this man to dig a deeper hole for us?"
That, admittedly, is the problem. The good news is Bush is bringing in the one man who can potentially snatch victory from the jaws of defeat to run the show. Bush finally seems semi lucid to the gravity of where he has brought us. Considering the devil we know in the alternative, I dont see as we have much choice going with the devil we dont by allowing Bush to double down.
I note that troop morale is higher in Iraq than the morale of the American public.
Maybe the troops know something.
It will be interesting to see if the Democrats can get close to a majority to support phased withdrawal. Last summer, the House vote on phased withdrawal was something like 400-3. Obviously, this goes up now that the leadership is behind it, but its still a dangerous position to take.
Looking at the CBS poll from Dec. 11 I can see that 50% want America to start ending involvement, 43% to keep fighting using different tactics, and 4% said keep fighting w/ same tactics. That divide doesn't favor the President, but it doesn't encourage a Congressmen to stick his/her neck out too far, particularly in purpose states. And then there is Lieberman.
Another interesting question polled was whether America has a responsibility to ensure Iraqi government stability before leaving: 57% yes, 38% no.
I'm not trying to paint a rosy picture on public opinion, but point out it remains very divided and might break either way on specifics.
Also, the chief Democratic leadership complaints against a surge is that its been tried before and didn't work and the generals oppose it. What if Bush present a plan different than before which the generals support?
Funny thing is Reid was calling for a surge as late as a week ago. But that is, according to him, before he found out some generals oppose it. So we either have to beleive by an amazing coincidence Reid just suddenly changed his position 180 degrees to get out of synch with Bush (by reflex one might suppose) or that the most important democrat senator throughout this entire war doesnt have any idea what the generals are thinking. So either read is an unserious political hack or an unserious senator. Great choice.
Here's an AP report on Reid's comments a few weeks ago:
"If it's for a surge, that is, for two or three months and it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then, sure, I'll go along with it," said Reid, who will become the majority leader when Democrats take control of the Senate next month from Bush's Republicans. He spoke on ABC's "This Week" program.
But fellow Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) of Massachusetts, when told of Reid's comments, disagreed.
"I respect Harry Reid on it, but that's not where I am," he said. "The generals who have testified before the Armed Services Committee think that we would add to being a crutch for the Iraqi civilian government in not making the right judgments and decisions. I think that is a persuasive case and is one that I support," Kennedy told "Fox News Sunday."
Notice that this is decidedly NOT an unconditional or open-ended support for a "surge" in the absence of a longer-term plan for withdrawal. And given that not all Democrats have come to the same conclusion (nor have all Republicans) it makes sense to compromise his views for the short term in order to present a strong political opposition to Bush. This is what Americans want.
The days of giving The Great War President whatever he wants are over.
And via Kevin Drum:
---
SURGE UPDATE....Whither the surge? The LA Times quotes a "senior Republican leadership aide":
"For any kind of a surge, they would have to show that the surge itself was limited. It would have to be six months or a year, tops."
Compare and contrast with Sen. John McCain:
"The worst of all worlds would be a short, small surge of U.S. forces. This troop surge [must be] significant and sustained; otherwise, don't do it."
Right. Meanwhile, AP reports that even Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki is skeptical about the surge. I would be too if I had read this:
"Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said this past week that any new effort to stabilize Baghdad would likely involve traditional, large-scale U.S. operations as well as nighttime raids by smaller, more mobile forces."
---
So, yeah, let's just lash out at Reid's comments.
Now you know why I laugh whenever a Republican/Right winger accuses the Left of being negative, divisive, or hate-filled.
FOR THE LOVE OF PETE AND THE SAKE OF AMERICA, GIVE THE DAMN DEMOCRATS A CHANCE TO GOVERN BEFORE FREAKING OUT AT EVERY WORD!!!
Why would Rockford be acting all surprised that the Democratic Party would campaign to the left? America is a liberal country founded on liberal primcipals. Sure we lose our way by the deceptions of conservative wackoes once in a while but we always come back to our nations true values.
We were warned by our very first liberal President to avoid foreign entaglements. That was good advice in 1776 and it is good advice now.
We Americans know instictively that the war on Iraq is not in our best interests. How could it be? It was a war started by Bush on the basis of lies.
We don't support wars based upon lies. We just don't.
The Democrats seem to get this. Too bad so many republicans do not.