To Surge or Not to Surge

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 9:56am

That is the question. Do YOU believe a "surge" will work?

(And don't you think "Troop Surge" is the stupidest slogan the White House has come up with since "Shock and Awe"?)

Is Bush just sacrificing American soldiers because of his pride? Or is "victory" still a possibility for the US in Iraq?

(One TV pundit last night said "Yes, door-to-door combat in Iraqi villages will result in more dead Americans but it's Bush's last best hope." [My emphasis.]

Do you agree with the president and John McCain that "surging" in more troops is a good idea?

Or do you agree with the Democrats and military leaders like Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq, and Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, his predecessor, that "the U.S. war effort is exhausting old tactics that haven't worked."

What do YOU think?

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 9:58am

This is a tad off-topic, but remember that awful drink SURGE?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 10:00am

That's not merely off topic. That's precisely why people detest you.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 10:06am

The man's hubris is of Greek tragedy proportions.

Posted: 1/8/07 at 10:07am

i think its scream-&-roll-on-the-floor-funny that Fred Kagan is advising Bush to ask people to volunteer...isnt this the week that Bush is supposed to talk up the need for "sacrifice"?

ATTENTION: War supporters - your country needs you

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 10:13am

"Bush's expected plan could send as many as 20,000 more U.S. troops."

Happy New Year Motherfncker.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 10:18am

I think that, at a certain point, a commander-in-chief's sending American troops in to be slaughtered--against the recommendations of the military and the Congress--may constitute an impeachable offense.

One of the Republican congressmen I heard last night (forgot which one) said Bush's action might be considered "criminal."

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 10:26am

a surge in and of itself tied to the same tactics is useless. however, given david petraeus' reputation, i'm not convinced that this will be business as usual. considering the consequences of utter and total failure (i.e. chaos, genocide, an iranian-style theocracy and the loss of what little influence we have left in the region, note i said little) i think that it's a reasonable gambit.

i disagree with those voices who claim that the u.s. presence merely fuels the insurgency and argue that what is holding iraq back is the lack of security. some would argue that it's a catch-22. again, i'd disagree. this will sound callous, but at this point there's more at stake than just lives and i'm not talking about bush's reputation.

davey's got a killer rep among the iraqis themselves which is why he got the job in the first place. couple that with the other shake-ups, casey to the joint chiefs, negroponte to state, and i think there's a chance for a real change in both tactics and results.

i don't think iraq's a lost cause yet, but blindly stumbling forward on the same path will surely lead to failure. pulling out or "redeploying" merely hands control to an as yet uncertain iraqi government and will lead to chaos and the aforementioned horrors.

i've never agreed with the view that this was either an illegal, immoral or unnecessary war and i still disagree with that view. given that belief, i maintain that every effort must be made to bring about a successful conclusion to the war and that this move, coupled with the recent leadership changes, gives us a chance to do so.

Posted: 1/8/07 at 10:26am

PJ, i believe that was Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR): Bush’s Iraq Policy ‘May Even Be Criminal’

Posted: 1/8/07 at 10:31am

VIDEO FLASHBACK: Bush Says Sending More Troops To Iraq Would ‘Undermine Our Strategy’

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 10:35am

At first I thought this was a sewing question.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 10:59am

Of course you would, Diva.

Papa, I understand that you feel that the war was not "illegal, immoral or unnecessary." But that does not address the main issue: that it was the WRONG war.

Going to war in Iraq did nothing to stabilize the Middle East, reduce terrorism, punish the perpetrators of 9/11 or find Osama bin Ladin. It merely unleashed chaos in a country that was held together by a brutal dictator, no more or less brutal than other regimes we have ignored.

Imagine, instead, if we had let the UN deal with Saddam and somehow brought peace--and food--to Sudan? Bush would have been seen as a savior.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 11:10am

i disagree that it was the wrong war, pj.

while it's true that it has done very little tangibly yet to stabilize the middle east, reduce terrorism, punish the perpetrators of 9/11 or find osama bin ladin, i maintain that in the long term that two of those goals are still achievable through this war and that the other two were never goals of this war.

bush would not be seen as a hero or savior or as anything less than the devil's handmaiden (cheney of course being the devil) for any reason. he could have single-handedly cured cancer, discovered a way to finally cure and prevent viral diseases and established a permanent palestinian state and he'd still be reviled.

more could and should have been done for the sudan, but we let the u.n. lead the way there and that's been a stunning success hasn't it?

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 11:12am

They tried this exact same tactic 2 years ago and it didn't work then... Why would it work now?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 11:19am

i don't think that they'll be trying the exact same tactics as were used then, diva. a surge was tried, but it's how the troops are used that makes the difference. new leadership, and different tactics.

as much as people like to make every battlefield decision bush's, the fact of the matter is that he's a hands off kinda guy. he picks his people and lets them do the job they were hired to do. which is why i'm optimistic that the new commander of the mnf-i will indeed be able to make a difference.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 11:22am

Well, put that optimisim in one hand and a pile of crap in the other and what do you get?

A handful of crap.

Posted: 1/8/07 at 11:25am

as much as people like to make every battlefield decision bush's, the fact of the matter is that he's a hands off kinda guy.

thats true.
he never put his hands on the August 6th 2001 PDB titled BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE THE UNITED STATES

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 11:25am

you must have met my father. one of his favorite sayings is, "wish in one hand and sh*t in the other and see which one gets full first." obviously the lesson didn't sink in for me.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 11:26am

Which two do you think stand a chance? Stabilizing the Middle East? Reducing terrorism?

No way. It has destabilized the region, which will disintegrate into Sunnistan, Shiitestan, Kurdistan and Oil-stan. And terrorism has increased.

And if the goal of the war turns out to have NEVER been to punish the perpetrators of 9/11, then Bush will be seen to have pulled a fast one on the idiots who voted for him. Once the public decides they will not mind if the president is impeached and convicted, the media and the Congress will become bloodthirsty and string him up just like they did to Nixon.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 11:32am

oh, n69n and i was just starting to re-evaluate you based on your bloodlust in the theater etiquette thread.

we'll see, pj. note i said, yet.

as far as the impeachment, like the media hasn't been bloodthirsty already? despite the most fervent calls from the wild and woolly left, it's not gonna happen. but then, i thought we were gonna keep both houses of congress, so wtf do i know?

Posted: 1/8/07 at 11:47am

oh, i would be all for war if they were conscripting disruptive audience members!!!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 11:54am

As long as it's only the "wild and woolly left" (I take that as a compliment, thank you very much), Pelosi will steer the Democrats away from impeachment, as she should.

But since Bush seems incapable of doing ANYTHING right, his support will continue to drop, and at a certain point the calls for impeachment will come from the even-more-wild and just-as-woolly center--y'know, the folks who actually voted IN the Democratic Congress.

That's when the fun starts.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 12:03pm

i worded that very carefully for exactly that reason.

as far as the approval ratings, the left (i refuse to accept that there's anything but the far-far-far left and the almost as far left) has had six years of campaigning against the gop. now it can no longer sit back, take pot shots and point out the gop's flaws but must actually lead. so it's a bit early to assume that the status quo will continue, i.e. bush will continue to get more and more unpopular.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 12:05pm

I'm still unclear on what Bush would consider a "victory" in this war. Does he truly believe that at some point, we could leave and the country would magically stabilize as a democracy? That suicide bombers and radical Muslims will stop killing civilians? That other countries will follow suit, become peaceful democracies and no longer be a threat to the US? That all Middle Eastern nations will just give us the oil we want out of fear, or even more laughably, out of respect?

Perhaps Bush should have taken a course in Middle Eastern history before he decided to Shock and Awe them and start sending our soldiers out to die. I mean, does Bush really and truly believe he will be the Democratic Savior of the Middle East? I really do marvel at his arrogant stupidity. Other than the death of Hussein and a few Al-Qaeda members, I don't think I've seen anything else positive come from this.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 1:51pm

From FireDogLake.com, which always does great progressive graphics: