William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
The Fake Options Debate
By now, it should be clear to everyone that the options being bandied about for what to do in Iraq are all about the limitations of the United States military.
As Tom Ricks reports today in The Post there may end up being a short-term buildup of forces. Some will insist on portraying this as a feasible push to "break the back" of the insurgency. More accurately though, it a set-up to justify (and screen) a new strategy that everyone else on Planet Earth will refer to as withdrawal.
In the crazy ways of Washington, ever since the election swept in a Democratic majority fueled by public displeasure with the Iraq war, the momentum in the hallowed halls has been building for an increase in U.S. military forces in Iraq.
It is the desire of the President and the Vice President. It is the proposal of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and many others. It is the secret compromise "hybrid" plan of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
For all of the calls for even greater increases in U.S. forces in Iraq, a significant increase would be impossible to sustain. As the theater commander Gen. John P. Abizaid told Congress last week, psychologically and bureaucratically, the budget, the personal lives of the soldiers and the institutions involved can't shoulder nor sustain any significant increase.
What we are thus left with is a recipe for failure. The numbers involved in an "increase" in U.S. forces - some 20,000 additional troops - will, in no way make any significant dent in the situation on the ground. What is more, it will just lead to a picture on the part of the bad guys that the United States is powerless and incompetent militarily, a view that no doubt will serve as a terrific recruiting tool in the future.
more:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/11/the_fake_options_debate.htmlMindless Escalation In Iraq
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree