Blue Crab Boulevard

Well, Maybe Not Exactly

The trial balloons have been flying so thick and heavy that they formed a veritable eclipse of the sun. The media was thumping the drum that there would be dialog with Iran and Syria. It got to be so much that Mad Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was strutting his poorly hygienic arrogance about saying that the West would accede to his demented plans to acquire the bomb.

Maybe not.

President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration's internal deliberations.

Mr Bush's refusal to give ground, coming in the teeth of growing calls in the US and Britain for a radical rethink or a swift exit, is having a decisive impact on the policy review being conducted by the Iraq Study Group chaired by Bush family loyalist James Baker, the sources said.

Although the panel's work is not complete, its recommendations are expected to be built around a four-point "victory strategy" developed by Pentagon officials advising the group. The strategy, along with other related proposals, is being circulated in draft form and has been discussed in separate closed sessions with Mr Baker and the vice-president Dick Cheney, an Iraq war hawk.

Point one of the strategy calls for an increase rather than a decrease in overall US force levels inside Iraq, possibly by as many as 20,000 soldiers. This figure is far fewer than that called for by the Republican presidential hopeful, John McCain. But by raising troop levels, Mr Bush will draw a line in the sand and defy Democratic pressure for a swift drawdown.

The reinforcements will be used to secure Baghdad, scene of the worst sectarian and insurgent violence, and enable redeployments of US, coalition and Iraqi forces elsewhere in the country.

Point two of the plan stresses the importance of regional cooperation to the successful rehabilitation of Iraq. This could involve the convening of an international conference of neighbouring countries or more direct diplomatic, financial and economic involvement of US allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

"The extent to which that [regional cooperation] will include talking to Iran and Syria is still up for debate," said Patrick Cronin, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. "Externally, US policy is focused on what is achievable. Some quarters believe Syria in some ways could be helpful. There are more doubts about Iran but Iran holds more cards. Some think it's worth a try."

"Worth a try is not the same as a done deal. Nor is it a position of strength for Mahmoud. It may be that Bush just foxed a few people, including the jaded "realist" camp. One hopes. Here's the Guardian's capsule of the plan:

· Increase US troop levels by up to 20,000 to secure Baghdad and allow redeployments elsewhere in Iraq

· Focus on regional cooperation with international conference and/or direct diplomatic involvement of countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia

· Revive reconciliation process between Sunni, Shia and others

· Increased resources from Congress to fund training and equipment of Iraqi security forces.

Surprise. It may not be cut and run after all.

War | Gaius November 15, 2006

By Robert, November 16, 2006 @ 6:47 am

What difference is 20,000 troops going to make? It’s not a big enough number to do anything decisive to change the course of what’s going on. Either we need a draft and increase the number by 100,000-200,000 troops or we should just forget it. This seems like throwing soldiers at a problem with no real chance of success–the 2006 version of the Charge of the Light Brigade.
By Gaius, November 16, 2006 @ 6:51 am

< ?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> < !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> Funny how it is only the Democratic party that thinks a draft is needed, isn't it?
By Arlo, November 16, 2006 @ 8:34 am

We sure wouldn’t need a draft if all the people who claim to think these wars are so important to win would sign up.
By Former Republican, November 16, 2006 @ 11:37 am

“Funny how it is only the Democratic party that thinks a draft is needed, isn’t it?”

Nice debating point, but it’s not true. Senator Hagel, for one, has raised the possibility. http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040420154719.soi8dhtt.html

On the merits, I agree with Robert. We seem to be losing the war. Certainly, if we pull out now we will be perceived as having lost. If you want to win, put in more troops. I also agree with Robert that 20,000 is not enough. Historical precedents suggest hundreds of thousands more, maybe even a million. To keep hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq, you might have to increase the Army by a million or two. That’s easily with US capabilities– for a rich country of 300 million people it’s not even breathing hard –but it would require a draft. If you are serious about winning, if this really is comparable to WWII or the Cold War, then that’s what you should do. It’s a theoretical possibility, though, since it’s obviously a nonstarter in American politics. If you were going to do something like that, you should have started in 2003 or 2004.

Personally, I think that the comparison to WWII or the Cold War is absurd, and that crushing the Iraq insurgency with hundreds of thousands of US troops would be a Pyrrhic victory. So I’m not in favor of a draft (and I doubt Robert is either).

I see no alternatives that (a) hold much promise of actual victory and (b) are politically possible. So I think we’ve already lost, and the only question is how bad the damage will be.

Of couse, I could be wrong. I’m an American, and the American record on making predictions about Iraq is pretty bad.
By BubbaB, November 16, 2006 @ 12:17 pm

Robert:

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred.
—Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Funny, but the Light Brigade were considered “noble.” We are told to honor them. The Democrats don’t consider the military noble, or worthy of honor, for any purpose (see John “I put my silver, ketchup flavored foot in my mouth again” Kerry.)

Besides, with that logic, then out of the troops that we have sent to Iraq, we would have lost a whole lot more (almost 40%, if I remember correctly.)