Article

2007-01-23 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ryuge 2007-01-23 07:05|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I wish they would stop calling it an 'effing "surge". The delta in the number of troops is relatively small. The important and effective change is in the No More Mr. Nice Guy political ROE.

Too bad Maliki was unable to break out of traditional arab tribal mode and become Iraq's George Washington. He did deserve to be given the chance, maybe just not such a long one.

Posted by SteveS 2007-01-23 09:43|| 2007-01-23 09:43|| Front Page Top

#2 given that we 140,000 or so troops, spread everywhere from Mosul to Tikrit to Baghdad and Anbar, the addition of 21000 more entirely in Baghdad and Anbar, and mainly in Baghdad IS a surge.

Even NPR acknowledged today that there were fewer kidnappings/killings going on - again, looks like Sadr is trying for the low profile.

The real question is - can we use the next 18 months to achieve real gains politically in Iraq, in rebuilding, etc, so that when we finally do have to reduce troops numbers, the Sadrists and insurgents cant simply come back as strong as ever.

Posted by liberalhawk 2007-01-23 09:53|| 2007-01-23 09:53|| Front Page Top

#3 I would tweak your question, lhawk, to say can/will we use the coming months to actually establish security and credibility in key select areas by killing people, detaining people, and breaking the will of anyone who resists order/the new order - oh, and also political progress and some reconst. in some areas to help cement the deal.

Petraeus stole my line and encouraged me, then deflated me and reminded me of what seems a serious problem in the brass, in his Senate testimony, more or less in consecutive sentences. First - it's what we do with the troops, more than the numbers (finally, someone adding some adult supervision to this painful discussion); second - we're going to focus on protecting the populace, not killing insurgents. So what happens to the "insurgents"? Do they evaporate, become butterflies in the spring, move to Mars, what? The bulk of them, and the key ones, sure aren't going to get on board with the new program, if you're talking Sunni areas or any areas with a robust criminal element.

The "there is no military solution to military problems" disease has ravaged much of our senior brass, it seems, esp. in the Army. Stop the madness, I say. Iraqis know better than "small war" experts now to secure their neighborhoods - kill/capture/intimidate enough bad guys to give the majority confidence they can rat out the f**kers, join the police, whatever. Short of that, in the areas where most of the violence occurs, we're dooomed to failure or overly costly and partial success .....

Posted by Verlaine 2007-01-23 17:31|| 2007-01-23 17:31|| Front Page Top

#4 Rebuilding, LH? How many times and in how many cities? This rebuilding strategy seems ill thought out; a few misplaced bombs can drop a newly built facility as easily as it can an older one. So then what, we rebuild it and they take it down again, ad nauseum? Don't we imagine the "insurgents" are aware of this? Certainly al Qaeda is as one of their supreme strategies is to chip away at us economically.

Seems to me that rebuilding should be conditional.

Posted by Jules 2007-01-23 19:29|| 2007-01-23 19:29|| Front Page Top

17:23 Icerigger
23:18 trailing wife
23:16 trailing wife
23:10 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:08 3dc
23:02 Lone Ranger
23:02 Phineter Thraviger
23:01 ex-lib
22:58 Chuck Darwin
22:56 trailing wife
22:47 Anonymoose
22:41 Anonymoose
22:37 Procopius2k
22:21 Barbara Skolaut
22:10 Barbara Skolaut
22:08 Barbara Skolaut
21:58 Expert From Oregon
21:58 tipper
21:49 Beau
21:48 RD
21:42 mojo
21:40 mojo
21:35 RD
21:34 Alaska Paul