http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/IraqCoverage/story?id=2731720 Well, how would you like to surge to victory?
Want to do it on the backs of people staying in when they should be out? Want to do it on the backs of those on their third tour? Want to do it with 20,000, or wait, I know, 30,000, new troops?
Well, you can, if you're the Decider. See, he's the Commander-in-Chief, and he, and Dick Cheney, looked at the ISG report. And they looked at the November election results. And they looked at what they felt they had to do--they are going to surge. That's how you handle insurgents. See?
And it sounds so positive--surge forward. Surging popularity. Surging poll numbers. Surging testosterone. An "urge to surge." Except that a lot of people aren't really "feeling it." Like General John Abizaid, who doesn't believe we need more troops there
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1789691.htm. Like the American people,
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-poll13dec13,1,6941388.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true . And the Army will be mightily stretched to provide them,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/14/national/main2266367.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2266367 . Even Colin Powell thinks it's a bad idea,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0kk9WiaajU0&refer=homeThe question of the hour is--what does he plan to do with these extra troops? That the idea is to quell the insurgency is well and good--if that's what will actually happen. So, some will go to Baghdad--we certainly need quelling there--and from there where? Anbar--that might be a target.
I see Sunni targets, really. It's the Sunni insurgent they mention, after all, when they get to mentioning who they are or what they stand for. Not former Baathist or former Saddamist, just, Sunni, because they are the minority in Iraq. The Shia are kind of a serious part of the gov't. The thing they might do we can call the 80 percent solution--hey, there's the famous fraction. Maybe 80 percent of the Sunni totally hate US involvement since we kicked out their leader. The Sunni are in the minority, but maybe it's more like 30 percent as opposed to 20--but they hope to pacify the 80%
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6007-2004Nov22?language=printer. There is also a name--The Darwin Principle (which I am sure the venerable naturalist would repudiate any association with)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/weekinreview/17cooper.html?_r=1&oref=slogin that suggests the minority Sunni are SOL.
But one line should stand out:
while there are more Shiites than Sunnis in Iraq and Iran, there are more Sunnis than Shiites almost everywhere else.And it is so--the House of Saud, and Al Quada are both Sunni. Our enemies, and our sometimes allies. And yet we
http://d-day.blogspot.com/2006/12/fly-in-80-ointment.html decided to side with the majority Shia in the civil war that the White house does not yet really acknowledge exists.
Would this be a good move in the war on terror--really? Especially since Maliki has shown a great deal of flexibility--he's reached out to Saddam's former Army:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq17dec17,0,39370.story?coll=la-home-headlines. He's showing leadership--an attempt to pull things together. Isn't that indicative of what we want in Iraq? That Iraq is sovereign, and standing up?
It is said Cheney is very keen on the 80 percent solution:
http://d-day.blogspot.com/2006/12/fly-in-80-ointment.html, maybe because in '91 he let the Shia out to hang in their attempt to overthrow Saddam, with a basic, good old-fashioned massacre in the aftermath. Perhaps he can even shrug off the term "genocide".
But why, oh why, would they do it? If the people hate it, if the region will be less stable, if it won't do diddly against terror (ahem, what alledgedly we are fighting about). If it leads to war crimes, perhaps--why bother? Is this "surge" such a great war product? Will it make everyone in the administration look less like hopeless screw-ups? Is this why we are sendind it more troops?
So Bush isn't a loser? So history, which he may not even be alive to witness, will say he was right?
Or politically, so he can stick an even bigger disaster to his putatively Democratic successor. There's a possibility.
Hey, McCain supports more troops in--there is your sign:
It's *political.*
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
