Here’s a seriously disturbing story from TPM Café. Vali Nasr writes,
It now looks like the administration has adopted the surge strategy as its mantra. Simply put it means no new political road map for Iraq in place of the “national unity government†formula that has so far failed (has not delivered on the insurgency but has managed to alienated the Shias, and has actually caused more rather than less sectarian violence since the U.S. adopted it); going it alone (ignoring ISG’s recommendation to talk to the neighbors); and putting more boots on the ground. This last item deserves special attention. The language of the administration suggests that the surge will be used to fight radical groups and sectarian militias—Sunni ones and especially Shia militias and death squads associated with Muqtada al-Sadr. But listen closely; what they mean is that surge is in fact meant to finish off Sadr. And there lies the danger.
This is stunning. This means that the war will escalate, and our troops will be taking on multiple sides of a civil war at the same time. And by taking on Shia militias, Nasr says, we run the risk of inciting a Shia insurgency, which is about the only sort of violence Iraq hadn’t seen already.
The generals (who, we’ve been told until now, were making “decisions on the ground”) are opposed to the surge. But as if on cue, today several news outlets have reported that soldiers in Iraq support the surge. David Cloud of the New York Times writes,
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, talking to enlisted soldiers on his second day in Iraq, heard broad support today for a proposal to send more American forces to Iraq, an idea that has emerged as a leading option as the Bush administration considers a strategy shift.
“I really think we need more troops here,†said Specialist Jason T. Glenn, one of several soldiers at a breakfast meeting with Mr. Gates who backed the idea. “With more presence here,†he said, security might improve to a point that “we can get the Iraqi Army trained up.â€
You can read essentially the same story from the Associated Press. Thomas E. Ricks and Howard Schneider report for the Washington Post,
Bush said this week he is waiting to hear from Gates after the new defense secretary returns from Iraq before making a final decision on the issue.
In a breakfast earlier in the day with more than a dozen enlisted soldiers, however, Gates got an earful about the need for more personnel.
“I really think we need more troops here, with more presence on the ground. More troops might hold [the insurgents] off long enough to where we can get the Iraq army trained up,” said Spec. Jason Glenn, a member of an intelligence unit in the first infantry division.
“I think we do need more troops over here,” agreed PFC Cassandra Wallace, a support soldier in the Tenth Mountain Division. “More troops would help us integrate the Iraqi army into patrols here.”
You don’t have to wait for the White House speechwriters to put this together for you, do you? You know that sometime soon President Bush is going to announce that soldiers are asking for more troops in Iraq, so we have to send them.
I guess now we’re bypassing the generals and are asking the soldiers to make decisions on the ground.
Secretary Gates is, in fact, doing a heck of a job hearing what Bush wants to hear. According to Ricks and Schneider, not only is Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declaring stoutly that Iraq will “take the lead role in solving the country’s security problems,” (translation: See? Iraqification is working!) but Gates is saying that both Iran and Syria are playing “a very negative role” in Iraq. Iran especially (translation: Just forget about discussions with Syria and Iran).
You know that Bush has already decided what the Great Leap Forward to Victory will be, and that it will look remarkably like the old plan on meth. What we’re seeing now is just the pre-leap ceremony.
I have to ask…why is it that the soldier’s thoughts on this war carry more weight than others? They are trained to do one thing…what they are told.
Why would anybody rely on them in making life and death decisions that affect the entire nation’s national security?
Patrick
Patrick — The soldiers are just propaganda fodder. You know those soldiers were carefully vetted before they got to Gates. I’m sure if someone sniffed around they’d find plenty of soldiers with other points of view. And if it all goes to hell as it surely will, the Right will say it’s the soldiers’ fault.
Defeat is a cruel taskmaster. The decider’s decisions have already been decided by defeat. Bush has to go where he’s being lead..into the jaws of defeat. Momma was right!..when you tell a lie, that lie owns you. And Forrest Gump was right also.. stupid is…..
One plus for Bush is that Mogtada al-Sadr doesn’t need much dressing up to be demonized.
The soldiers’ comments are deliberately taken out of context. Certainly any soldier would want more comrades on the ground with them, but the Powers-That-Be are passing these expected, operational comments as an endorsement for a Grand New Strategy that’s going to change the direction of the war.
There’s a deliberate confusion of levels of thinking in other words.
You nailed it Maha. That crowd LOVES to blame the victim.
A few days ago at our gym, I ran across an ex soldier who served in Iraq. My wife and I said we respected his service to the country but hated what the leaders in government have done to take advantage of his sense of duty and that of so many other soldiers.
He wasn’t going to go there. He just said he’d go back willingly if called. Kept repeating the mantra he only follows orders.
I’m no psychiatrist, but is it just impossible for most soldiers to confront a painful truth – this war has made us less safe, they’ve been lied to, their presence (with the exception of some positive interactions with the civilian population) has done more harm than good in Iraq ??
I read an article in Time a few years ago about the soldiers coming back without arms and legs or with debilitating head wounds. Most of those interviewed were not upset with the leadership in the government and most wanted to return to their units. It’s something I just don’t completely understand.
Patrick
The soldiers are just propaganda fodder
Jason is a specialist. Aside from our different locations, Jason has got about enough combat experience in Iraq as I have by manning my keyboard in mom’s basement. Maybe Jason should throw on The Sands of Iwo Jima featuring John Wayne if he want to qualify for a CIB, or earn some hard stripes. Gates should go the amputee wards at some of the major military medical centers if he really wants to get a well rounded opinion about whether it’s worth it to stay the course. Breakfast with the Secretary of Defense is a whole different experience when it’s being served to you through a tube.
Even Scarborough Country knows that the delusional bubble won’t pop. This is what happens when perception becomes reality.
When the generals were asking for troops; no no we don’t need them.
Now that they won’t do any good; send them.
It appears that we are going to have to relieve the commander.
Mike Barnicle: “the deaths (of our troops) now verge on the criminal”.
Video: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/SC-Bush-GeneralsGetLost.mov
This remind anybody else of pics of LBJ drawing up his own little tactical plans in the Oval Office?
I suspect that the Joint Chiefs know a bit more about what’s strategically effective or logistically plausible and what’s not where military matters are concerned than, y’know… an elected politician.
Specialist Jason Glenn, of Mountain Grove, MO, told Gates.
“Sir, I think we need to just keep doing what we’re doing,”
“I really think we need more troops here. With more presence on the ground, more troops might hold them (the insurgents) off long enough to where we can get the Iraqi army trained up.”
What else can we do?
pauleywood – this reminds me of the poster from ‘Easy Rider’ with the famous line “We blew it.”, which was modified; Nixons face where Nicholsons face was. For those of us old enough to remember, it’s time for a new version. Those too young to remember, ask grandpa.
paulywood, I was having eerie LBJ flashbacks too, and I was only 10 years old in ’68. Some memories linger because they’re chilling; for instance:
Stubborn delusional hardcase from Texas –> endless stream of flag-draped coffins.
And aren’t we coming up on an anniversary of Tet? I seem to remember Christmas Eve at my cousins’ house, and the news coming over a radio…. Maybe than was some other horrible Vietnam debacle.
joanr16 —
You may be thinking of Nixon’s horrific Xmas 1972 bombing campaign on N. Vietnam. Tet was in late January 1968.
Hello friends on the left,
I’m sorry to ask such obvious questions::
1. What do you think will happen once we leave?
2. Do you think if the likely scenerio takes place (worse violence, possible loss of Iraq to a hostile enemy), we wouldn’t have to become involved in another conflict?
By the way, I’m one of those propaganda fodder mentioned in one of the earlier comments.
Nelson
http://www.asymmetricblog.com
maha – “You know those soldiers were carefully vetted before they got to Gates.” My exact thought.
On Nov. 25, 2006, the Wall Street Journal had a list of the five “ultimate books on public relations†compiled by PR executive Michael Kempner. It included “American Hero” by Larry Beinhart (retitled Wag the Dog). His primary thesis is that the government stages events. The corporate media cover the events (like stenographers). The public consumes the coverage. bing, bang, bam.
However, yesterday, Bush was quoted saying, “”There’s got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops before, you know, I agree on that [surge] strategy,”
There’s one for a White House Press Corps follow-up. So, what’s the exact mission of the surge?
Yeah, Nelson..It is kinda an obvious question when your second question gives the desired answer to the first. Say what you want say, but don’t masquerade it as an attempt to seek understanding. And if I could read minds, or predict what the future will be, I’d be a rightie. Although I do have the innate sense to see a defeat when it’s headed in our direction.
Minor point Maha, but I think the term is Iraqization as in Vietnamization, a policy adopted in 1969.
You might find my Iraq vs Vietnam Timeline Comparison of interest. I was surprised, and welcome critique.
Doug Hughes – Is this the Easy Rider Poster?
http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/news_images/8850_24554_5.jpg
When we leave, there will be more blood as Iraqis sort things out. It will add to the accumulated evil for which Bush and his war-of-aggression conspirators are responsible.
During the Nuremberg trials, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, stated:
“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
1. What do you think will happen once we leave?
2. Do you think if the likely scenerio takes place (worse violence, possible loss of Iraq to a hostile enemy), we wouldn’t have to become involved in another conflict?
I suspect it will be a bloodbath if we leave, but it appears to be a bloodbath if we stay. The thing is, the situation appears to be bleeped beyond all hope. We never should have invaded Iraq, but once we invaded there was a limited amount of time to effect a good outcome. That time has long passed. At this point we have to save ourselves.
Will we have to become involved in another conflict? We’re not going to have to become involved in another conflict. We didn’t have to become in conflict we’re involved in. And please note I was in lower Manhattan on 9/11; I haven’t forgotten it. Starting wars all over the Middle East is not making us safer, dear.
Just heard on the 11 o’clock news that Condi said the Iraq war is worth the lives and money. She says we will win.
Condi also said the Lebanese war was “helpful”.
While the media pretends that all options are on the table, we can see there is only one option they have listened to, that of Kagan. The one they wanted to hear. Perhaps now all will see that this administration hears only what it wants to hear. That the run up to the war was not an isolated event but a pattern of behavior that has not changed one whit. That Bush will escalate the Iraq war while preparing to attack Iran. When will the country say no to him? Now that the realists have been ignored one more time will they realize how delusional the administration truly is?
Maha, I saw Gates eating with the troops and getting their oh-so-spontaneous feedback in the form of requests for more troops on the Today show this morning. It was so fraudulent and sickening that I was ranting and raving all day. Finally settled down by going out in the December drizzle and celebrating the Solstice by making an ice lantern by the side of a dark and thawing lake and lighting the candles. But then I got pissed all over again. Didn’t we have an election about this recently? Wasn’t the press going to become less compliant? Wasn’t Congress going to get some backbone, finally?
We’ve all got to get serious in the new year. The country can’t take two more years of this hell, or the aftereffects of the chaos the Demented Decider is creating.
Mr. Guirado has asked a fair question as far as the consequences of leaving Iraq now, but another fair question logically follows…
What do you think will happen if we stay?
The situation in Iraq is no longer by any rational measure a military problem, but a political one: does anyone seriously or realistically believe that U.S. Marines – who are by definition first-in / last-out combat troopers – in any quantity, can substitute effectively for a local constabulary? The entire concept of the president’s stated intentions are a farce: Iraq doesn’t need an “army” to defend, sustain, or govern itself any more than Japan or Germany needed an “army” after WW2. The last absolutely positively LAST thing that country needs is an Army… it needs local police and a constitution to assign reasonable limitations and accountability to the powers of those officers.
Good luck selling that notion to Halliburton at a sensational profit.
Pingback: Suuuuurge?!? « cannablog
Hi ya Nelson!
First of all “We” ain’t staying or leaving or anything else, it is THEY, the soldiers, spooks, “contractors” et al enlisted by Bushcheney.corp to do their bidding.I’m at the point where I barely believe my vote has any meaning, and it seems reasonable to assume “we” are little more than Borg like critters working our jobs, being careful not to offend with our strange demented political views, and spending what meager earnings we have to support the birthday of baby Jesus and keep the economy humming ( more like whinning than humming, with an occasional grinding when the gears are shifted)
To answer your questions, I have no idea what will happen if the troops are withdrawn, CRAP, I have no idea what’s going on over there now,EXCEPT that about 100 Iraqis and somewhere around 4 U.S. soldiers are being killed each day. I think a better question is “how much DO you know about what is going on in Iraq”
Are “we” still playing nekked games with Iraqi prisioners and beating them to death? How many caskets flew into Dover this week? Seen any photos? Is depleted uranium as bad as the crazy lefties say? Did “we” use white phosphorus and napalm on Falooga? Did you see any film or photos of the fighting in Falooga?
Why do we see only the same footage of soldiers in Iraq time after time?
Instead of worrying about what will happen when “we ” leave, better ask questions about what “we” will do in 10 years if this shit is still going on and if it SPREADS! THEN WHAT? Who’s gonna fight it? How we Gonna pay for it? The Afghan war Wrecked the Soviet Union, not (as most right w3ingers believe) “the Ronald”.
Many have compared this war to our war in VietNam, we should be comparing it to Russia’s war with Afghanistan instead because the similarities are undeniable.
As a foot note to the above, google “Turkmenistan” and see where all this is leading and why it is happening.
Seems likely that the ‘Gates checking in with the troops’ was pure stagecraft of poll-based Rovian strategy. To thwart the will of American voters who overwhelmingly want OUT OF IRAQ, just mix that sentiment conflatingly with the heart space of the American voters who overwhelmingly SUPPORT THE TROOPS.
To ask the troops themselves [about continuing to fight in Iraq] is like asking a football team down points at the end of the final quarter if they think we should change the rules and add a fifth quarter to the game.
December 22, 2006
The Bush Administration, Iraq War
What can anyone do to stop the Bush machine? Recently Robert M. Gates sounded a moderate signal in an approach to the Iraq War to bring our troops home. Now in sharp contrast, he is discussing a temporary surge, supporting the administration’s bogus mantra. This retrograde motion of Bush needs to be stopped by the democrats in Congress. They must reject his $100 billion demand for war funding.
How serious can a Bill Kristol be when he personally called for this war and he now jokes about it on Letterman and blames Bush for mismanagement as if it could have possibly gone right.
Bush asks the American people to support the war by going shopping.
The next President, probably Senator Barak Obama or Senator John Edwards will have too much to do. The next President probably won’t fair any better than when Mikhail Gorbachev tried to reform the Soviet Union before it imploded.
Bush’s state of denial approaches Iran’s President’s Ahmadenijad’s bizarre denial of the Holocaust, despite actual movie footage of the piled bodies and other oven/gas horrors Hitler first hoped for in Mein Kamp, and later realized.
Paranoia explains Bush’s theory that when we leave Iraq, the insurgents, in other places under Reagan, would be called freedom fighters, will follow after us. That’s a cartoonish caricature of reality.
Remember Powell’s pottery barn analogy, you break it, you buy it was on target.
I believe McCain gave Bush political cover, calling for a temporary
surge in troops, in exchange, yes, quid pro quo, for Neo-con support for Mccain in 2008. This shameless politicking of war is despiccable and will be punished by the voters.
Stunningly Bush has essentially scrapped the Iraq study group recommendations. essentially giving President George H.W. Bush, our 41st President (Britney’s panties/Jeb’s tears), his father, the finger.
The aftermath of the war must be left to the next democrat president and don’t expect Hillary to clean up this mess. She showed poor judgment in supporting the invasion. That’s unforgiveable to most democrat progressives, and it will be in 2008.
When the U.S. deaths in Iraq exceed the 9/11 Toll on Christmas, maybe someone in the religious right will ask Bush to step down.
But don’t hold your breath for Reverend Falwell or Reverend Pat Robertson.
Frank in Miami contributed to this article. Hi, Becky Heal and Deborah Parcells, my 2 loves, not to mention Anne Hess.
I just heard on CNN that the Army is running a ‘test’ of the Selective Service Program. This is not an indication that the draft will return, according to an interview with the head of Selective Service. it’s just a test which they perform from time to time. Later in the interview he indicated that he was not sure what was involved because they had not done it before.
The whole thing is a bit Rovian, possibly designed to stimulate questions to allow the GREAT LEADER to assure the public that there will be no draft, but the patriotic poor and minorites need to enlist so a draft won’t happen. (You need to sign up for the Army so you don’t get drafted into the Army. Seats are limited; and wait – that’s not all.. if you sign up in the next 5 minutes you also receive….) (Don’t expect to see the Bush daughters in uniform.) This is all staged more carefully than ‘Hamlet’.
Pingback: The Heretik : BS
I’m so excited!…we just invested 5 more American lives in Iraq. We’re gonna be rich in freedom.
First off, I wanted to respond to Swami in comment #7 – Specialist (SPC) is a rank in the Army, between Private First Class and Sergeant. It was my rank when I left the army (not wanting to be an NCO in all this mess.) An Infantry soldier can be a SPC. It has nothing to do with occupation, it does not mean he’s sitting around with special job that keeps him from the patrols or anything.
Second, these soldiers are most CERTAINLY hand-picked for their opinions, if not given the exact wording of their “opinions” beforehand. The military has no problem with walking down the ranks in formation and asking each soldier in turn what their opinion is (if the questioner doesn’t already know it) and using that as the basis of what soldiers to send to these press events. It is a very controlled process, just like everything else in the military.
Just as an aside, enlisted people (privates, specialists, and sergeants) are allowed to speak their mind by UCMJ, although they’re often ordered – or simply pressured – not to by their chain of command. Officers, on the other hand, cannot speak negatively about the Commander in Chief or their chain of command (SecDef, SecArmy, etc..). Remember this the next time they have a press meeting with a bunch of Captains and Majors.
The next president will have to be both crazier and smarter than bush.
Crazier to take on the job of trying to fix the mess bush has created, and smart beyond belief to accomplish anything. What a fu*kin mess!
The sad part of the article is that you buy into the word “surge.” Stop using it. It is a euphemism for increasing ground forces. The Administration is talking about adding more troops to the war. You have to understand that the Adminstration cannot face what it is doing so it uses these words not only to fool us but itself.
I agree with Mat Conly: “surge” is pure disinfo-speak. I prefer to call it a troop “spurt” (as in blood). Better yet, call it “escalation”.
It gets worse. This morning I read a letter-to-the-editor calling for a ‘media surge’; i.e. propaganda. That letter-writer _wanted_ to be lied to. Him and who else? (Fortunately most of the other letters were reality-based.)
Thanks for the enlightenment, Derek. I stand corrected. My point in message #7 with it’s false assumption about Jason’s possible experience was that the greater the possibility that your life could be ended or terribly altered through severe injury, the deeper you would question the value of that risk. Jason’s mimicking of the party line lead me to believe that he was snug in some sandbagged quonset hut deep inside camp Victory experiencing Iraq as an oversized video game.
More to the point..once Bush admitted that there where no WMD’s in Iraq, any rational would dictate that the cause has been lost. Any Americans dying in Iraq are just dying for Bush to save face. It’s absurd to me to think that anyone could be satisfied risking their life, or promoting the continuance of war for a constantly shifting cause.
On that I agree completely. The guys yelling hardest to go and how much tail they’re gonna kick when they get there are generally the ones that get sent home after a couple weeks because of a complete breakdown when their boots actually hit the sand.
In the military, everything is broken down to the smallest detail. You learn not to think about the big picture and follow combat instincts. Small objectives and immediate threats is how you keep people from seeing the big picture. Of course, not nearly everyone falls for it, but for some soldiers, they just push analysis to the background and grip their rifle all the harder.
Didn’t mean to hit send yet. This is often seen as a virtue and encouraged. Being able to keep your mind completely on your orders and mission. An example is the “Message to Garcia” story which belittles the people who ask questions, and puts on a pedestal the person who will just shut up and take the message to Garcia. This is what soldiers are expected to do.