Do the math: This is no troop ‘surge’ in Iraq - More about withdrawal than escalation

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16857704/

<snip>Thus, the “surge.” Step One: increase U.S. troop levels and ally American units on the ground with the best Iraqi units we can find.

Step Two: enter a limited number of carefully selected areas.

Step Three: clear and hold these areas.

And faster than you can say “Step Four,” withdraw American troops and declare the Iraqis ready to defend themselves.

[BuyingThyme]

1. Yeah, right.

[NNN0LHI]

2. Did you read it? He isn't saying Bush is leaving. Here are the next 2 paragraphs

>>>To be sure, quite a few Americans will remain, but they will mostly be in an advisory capacity. And Gen. Petraeus will employ time-proven counter-insurgency techniques that may result in permanent success in those few areas in which they will be employed.

But anyone who honestly believes that we intend to pacify a restive nation of more than 27 million people with a mere 21,500 additional troops probably failed third-grade math.<<<

[MessiahRp]

3. His point is lost since escalation really isn't referring to the 21,500 troops

I believe when we talk about an Escalation it's related to the violence, not the troop totals that we're helping to incite by essentially accompanying Shia death squads and helping them kill Sunnis.

It's also more talking about the ramping up of rhetoric and the bringing of this war to Iran.

21,500 is a surge, what other things that are happening constitute an escalation.

Rp

[DaveJ]

4. No mention of permanent military bases?

Last I heard they were building at least 14 permanent military bases in Iraq, plus the $1 billion 'Bush's Palace', or am I missing something?

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. 4 or 5 - and they're now called "contingency operating bases"

U.S. military commanders have prepared plans to consolidate American troops in Iraq into four large air bases as they look ahead to giving up more than 100 other bases now occupied by international forces, officers said.

Several officers involved in drafting the consolidation plan said it entailed the construction of longer-lasting facilities at the sites, including barracks and office structures made of concrete block instead of the metal trailers and tin-sheathed buildings that have become the norm at bigger U.S. bases in Iraq.
...
Nonetheless, the consolidation plan appears to reflect a judgment by U.S. military commanders that American forces are likely to be in Iraq for some years, even after their numbers begin to decline, and that they probably will continue to face danger. The new buildings are being designed to withstand direct mortar strikes, according to a senior military engineer. Funding for the first group of redesigned barracks was included in the $82 billion supplemental war-spending bill approved by Congress this month, he said.
...
According to Yenter and others working on the plan, the four bases were chosen to enable U.S. forces to maintain a foothold in various regions of Iraq. Centered around airfields to facilitate resupply operations and troop mobility, the four are Tallil in the south, Al Asad in the west, Balad in the center and either Irbil or Qayyarah in the north.

Each base is being designed to hold a brigade-size combat team plus aviation units and other support personnel. Initially referred to in planning documents as "enduring bases," the term was changed in February to "contingency operating bases."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/21/AR2005052100611_pf.html

[NobleCynic]

5. I'd agree with you if step two said

withdraw into a limited number of carefully selected areas instead of saying enter into. This seems like an attempted expansion of our influence rather than a drawing down.

I think it's just a delaying maneuver so that Bush can foist off how to get out on whoever wins in '08.

[Nickster]

6. Yes of course, because Clear and Hold operations were surely a rousing success in Vietnam.

The military needs such a cleaning when Dubya is gone.