WP,pg1: Critics Say 'Surge' Is More of The Same: Skepticism grows inside and outside administration

[DeepModem Mom]

Critics Say 'Surge' Is More of The Same
Past Troop Buildups Have Not Quelled Iraq
By Michael Abramowitz, Robin Wright and Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 7, 2007; Page A01

President Bush is putting the final touches on his new Iraq policy amid growing skepticism inside and outside the administration that the emerging package of extra troops, economic assistance and political benchmarks for the Baghdad government will make any more than a marginal difference in stabilizing the country.

Washington's debate over Iraq will intensify this week as Bush lays out his plans, probably on Wednesday or Thursday, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other administration officials face tough questions from Democrats in congressional hearings.

Although officials said the president has yet to settle on an exact figure of new troops, senior military leaders and commanders are deeply worried that a "surge" of as many as five brigades, or 20,000 troops, in Iraq and Kuwait would tax U.S. ground forces already stretched to the breaking point -- and may still prove inadequate to quell sectarian violence and the Sunni insurgency. Some senior U.S. officials think it could even backfire.

"There is a lot of concern that this won't work," said one military official not authorized to speak publicly about the debate at the Pentagon.

Meanwhile, the political and economic ideas under consideration all appear to be variations on initiatives that U.S. and Iraqi authorities have proved unable to implement successfully since the 2003 invasion or have tried and found wanting, according to former U.S. officials and experts on reconstructing war-torn countries....

***

Senior military and administration officials privately admit their deep concerns that the troop increase will backfire -- and leave the United States with no options left in six to eight months....Meanwhile, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are worried about overstretching the Army and Marines....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/06/AR2007010601489.html

[truthisfreedom]

1. Cheney's going to have a cow over this.

He thought the papers were "taken care of."

[greenman3610]

2. this is a cynical ploy to stretch the war out

They know they've lost, they are daring the
Congress to stop them, then will scream
Dems don't "Support the Troops"...
or, keep the conflict going till a Dem Pres has to
stop it, and blame him for the ensuing
chaos.

[MGKrebs]

4. I agree, and leaders will need to challenge this forcefully.

It would be even better if some Repubs and Generals would publicly discredit the administration's policy.

If he does what it looks like he's going to do, it seems almost all experts see little chance for success. The crazy cabal needs to be isolated and shown for the incompetent, cyncial hacks that they are.

[Barrett808]

5. True, but I don't think it's going to work

Events have overtaken the Bush mob's ability to control them. It's going to be fascinating and terrifying to watch it all unravel this year.

[gratuitous]

6. Astonishing, no?

Usually, the half-crocked hare-brained schemes of the Bush administration have to be given months or even years to fail before everyone is allowed to say they could see it as a failure from the start. But now events are such that even before Chimpy puts out his "new" idea, some people are freely allowed to say that it's a failure.

Of course, that doesn't extend to the editorial pages of the nation's newspapers, all of which seem to suffer from lockjaw in their ability to call a proposal a failure. As if there really is some chance of success for the "surge" that doesn't allow it to slide into open-ended escalation; that is, if it doesn't just fail from the get-go.

It's almost as if the Bush administration is hoping for some public atrocity to be committed against one or more of our personnel, a Fallujah Bridge redux, to galvanize public opinion and get the people back on their side against the barbarians in Iraq.

[annabanana]

9. This is a sign of progress. It seems that the tongue of the

media has loosened a bit. That part of the machine that is not literally bought and paid for is asking more questions and giving their people more latitude.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. It could almost be funny to see Tony Snow and Dubya try to sell this part

The idea to revive state-owned industries has come full circle. Iraq's economy under Saddam Hussein was state-controlled. When the first U.S. team arrived, its members looked to reenergize the industries as a key element in jump-starting the economy. But the subsequent Coalition Provisional Authority, run by L. Paul Bremer, opted to scrap the effort and emphasize a free-market economy, even though Iraq was ill equipped to make a dramatic conversion. The failure of a free market and the lack of both local and foreign investment has led the Defense Department to launch a massive reassessment.

Dubya the socialist nation-builder. I can see a few freeper heads exploding over that one ...

[Eugene]

7. Reuters: Analysis-Iraq expects only "slight tuning" in U.S. policy

ANALYSIS-Iraq expects only "slight tuning" in U.S. policy
07 Jan 2007 17:35:06 GMT
Source: Reuters

By Claudia Parsons

BAGHDAD, Jan 7 (Reuters) - The Iraqi government expects a "slight tuning" in U.S.
policy rather than a major change when President George W. Bush makes a much-
heralded announcement this week on plans to turn around the increasingly unpopular
war.

Bush has already put in motion a reshuffle of commanders and diplomats in Iraq and is
preparing to unveil a new strategy next week that officials say may include a proposal
to add 20,000 U.S. troops in Baghdad, the epicentre of sectarian violence.

Few in Iraq, however, see a troop surge making a substantial difference in the absence
of other changes.

-snip-

"We know there is a slight tuning in the policy of the United State in Iraq and it includes
sending more troops to enforce security in and around Baghdad," Sami al-Askari, an adviser
to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, told Reuters.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PAR748986.htm

[MGKrebs]

8. This is the line that is most telling to me:

"the president has yet to settle on an exact figure of new troops".

I ain't no expert, but I'm pretty sure than when exact troop level numbers in theater are being determined in advance from the White House- no matter who the occupant is- trouble is brewing.

We have jumped past the professional soldiers being given a goal (and some rules) and letting them figure out how to to get it done. Now we are telling them exactly what to do tactically, but not really being clear about the goal. It's all backwards. They can't be expected to make good decisions in the field because they don't have the strategic goal to shoot for. And I submit the reason for that is- any plausible deniability of our imperialism would be gone. Everyone would know that we are there to control the oil, and we will control the oil at any cost. That is the kind of goal the military could work with if we were to give it to them, but they must perform their duties in such a way that disguises our true intentions.

A very, very sad state of affairs.