lyion wrote:http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/10cae0de-6f63-4e84-b528-887c323a8eea
1) How in the hell are an additional 20,000 troops going to make such a big difference when we already have about 140,000 troops in Iraq? It makes no sense! Cut and run!!
First, calm down. We’re going to walk through this analytically, not sprint through it hysterically. The current troop level in Baghdad is only 13,000. Most of the 20,000 new troops are going to be headed to Baghdad. That means we’re going to increase our troop complement in Baghdad by roughly 150%. In other words, as regards the Battle of Baghdad, this is an enormous tactical adjustment, not a symbolic gesture.
2) Hmmm. Interesting. I didn’t know that. Why didn’t the president say that last night?
This is where things get a little dicey. Most of the fighting has been in Baghdad. And Baghdad has been the symbolic center of things. And yet only 10% of out troops were in Baghdad. This doesn’t say anything good about the Bush administration.
3) Why did they do that? Why were so few forces in Baghdad?
To know the truth, we’ll probably have to wait for the memoirs to be written by the war’s principals. And even then, most of those will probably be self-serving and dishonest. The most reasonable explanation is that the Bush administration was so fearful of casualties that it hesitated to put a significant amount of troops into harm’s way.
4) Do you think that’s why Bush finally last night admitted to errors?
When you make such a significant tactical adjustment after three years of doing something else that didn’t work, it’s pretty clear that whoever was doing the initial strategizing screwed the pooch. Big time. The President knows the buck stops with him, and he did the right thing taking the blame. It is his fault.
5) The president’s critics, the bloggers who act like 20,000 troops is just a symbolic addition to the 140,000 who are already there – do they understand how the addition of 20,000 troops to Baghdad represents a radical change in troop strength in the key area of the conflict?
I doubt it. It actually makes me laugh to hear and read some of these people comment on complex military matters without acquainting themselves with the most basic facts. Take Andrew Sullivan. Please. In his “analysis” of the speech last night, Andrew tossed around troop figures without having the faintest idea of what he was talking about:
“If the president tonight had outlined a serious attempt to grapple with this new situation - a minimum of 50,000 new troops as a game-changer - then I'd eagerly be supporting him. But he hasn't. 21,500 U.S. troops is once again, I fear, just enough troops to lose.”
6) What’s wrong with that? Andrew wanted 50,000 troops. Big deal.
Mentioning a troop number without saying what those troops are going to do is an intellectually vacant and frivolous exercise. It’s a low form of positional bargaining, throwing out numbers without attaching those numbers to anything concrete. If Andrew’s going to hurl out the number 50,000, he should give a hint as to what he’s going to do with those 50,000. He should also specify why he thinks 20,000 isn’t an adequate number for the task at hand.
7) Which is?
Pacifying Baghdad.
8) Where did the number 21,500 come from?
Out of a hat. Just kidding. But that is where figures like Andrew’s 50,000 came from.
The surge strength number comes from Dave Petraeus’ estimate of what will be necessary to win Baghdad. Petraeus is breaking Baghdad into nine neighborhoods. Each neighborhood will get a contingent of 2500 Iraqi soldiers (probably ones trained by Petraeus) supported by 600 American troops. This number, the plan figures, will be sufficient to clear the neighborhoods and then hold them. In previous encounters, we would clear and retreat. This is a very significant difference. The total surge into Baghdad, counting Iraqi troops, will be well over 40,000.
9) What else is new?
The rules of engagement have finally changed. The Shiite militias will be targeted for destruction. This is important. For any government to be legitimate and effective, it has to have a monopoly on the use of violent force. Even though the Maliki government might be philosophically friendly to the Shiite militias, the government would be (and has been) worthless with those militias running around.
10) Sounds like there will be a lot more killing.
Yes. Unless the militias and Al Qaeda back down. Neither seems likely.
11) How about the Democrats? What do they want?
Honestly, they want to call the mission a failure and withdraw. Interestingly, not a single Democrat has seen fit to address the tactical wisdom of the surge (or escalation as they prefer to call it). Not a single donkey has challenged the potential efficacy of Petraeus’ plans with anything resembling a detailed analysis. All they do is holler their favorite new one word slogan – “ESCALATION” – and get out of Dodge.
12) Why don’t they assess the plan in a serious and responsible manner?
Good one! You think the Democrats want Petraeus to testify before the Senate and argue military tactics with Dick Durbin and the Admiral of Chappaquiddick, Ted Kennedy? They know they’re out of their league when talking about such matters, so they avoid the conversation altogether.
13) Do you think Democrats are aware of the kind of tactical things that we’ve just discussed here?
I doubt it. Frankly, I doubt that a lot of Republicans are either. The intellectual incuriosity of our Congress-people is truly breathtaking. You have guys and gals on the intelligence committee who five years after 9/11 don’t know whether Al Qaeda is Sunni or Shiite. I have a hard time believing that our solons have really crunched the numbers and analyzed the tactics regarding the battle for Baghdad.
14) So they’re just playing to their nutroots base?
Sam Brownback doesn’t have a nutroots base and he’s against the surge. On its face adding 20,000 troops to the 140,000 already there does admittedly seem to be, as my dear old Uncle Willie said this morning, a “band-aid.” The problem is most of our congressmen don’t look beyond the surface. So when a lightweight like Republican Gordon Smith of Oregon refers to the surge as a “Hail Mary pass,” I’m quite willing to believe that he says such things not out of malice but out of ignorance regarding the tactical sea-change that the surge represents.
15) Whoa! Really lashing out at the Republicans there. What’s the deal? Enforcing some kind of party loyalty or something?
Democrats can at least defend their antics as garden-variety partisan idiocy. Republicans saying the same sort of things can’t hide behind the curtain of serving their party. They’re just being idiots.
16) But what if Gordon Smith came out with a comprehensive assessment of what is tactically necessary to subdue Baghdad this afternoon? Would that change your mind?
Frankly, there’s a greater likelihood of unicorns flying out of my ass this afternoon than Gordon Smith demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of anything. In other words, I’ll deal with Senator Smith’s comprehensive assessment when he delivers it.
Lueyen while this is very good, you do not address the fact that he has ignored his Joint Chiefs and the commision report who both suggest the opposite course.
This war has been a massively expensive failure from the beginning. All this crap is just fluff to try and save some face and hide the fact Bush wanted control of the oil. Fact of the matter is pretty much summed up by your comment here
10) Sounds like there will be a lot more killing.
Yes. Unless the militias and Al Qaeda back down. Neither seems likely.
as long is the idiology exists, so will terrorism. period. all the troops and money in the world cannot change this fact. Sending more troops is a total waste. The US needs to GET OUT of iraq and make the iraqis themselves take up this fight. Until someone is able to get these opposing factions to peacefully co-exist ( not likely ) there will be no end.
