Fascinating.

But, when people start waking up in March and realize that the President has responded to the elections by channeling Lyndon Johnson there's going to be hell to pay!

Why can't Democrats ever get AHEAD of the curve on Iraq instead of trailing hopelessly behind public opinion? People think they voted to get out of Iraq. They said "Decelerate!" and Bush heard "Escalate"!

This new effort will only intesify the violence and increase the threat of terrorism, because IT'S OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ THAT IS CAUSING THE PROBLEM!

We can't seem to face that because that would admit we were wrong to invade and wrong to stay. God forbid we admit that we simply lost the war because the people of Iraq don't want us there. Whatever else they may want they don't want us there.

So, Democrats could be on top of this issue simply by calling for immediate withdrawal. The media would scream and wing-nuts would call treason! Let them howl and then sit back and wait for the popular reaction to sink in to pundit-land. People are sick of this war and want out and will support Democrats who say so plainly and simply.

We're not willing to wait for victory. Victory is never going to come any more than it did in Vietnam. Face up to that fact America, we've lost the war.

I am not sure what you think Democrats can do. They are not about to cut off money while we have troops in the field. The President is stil l the Commader-in Chief.

Is victory possible? Probably not but Americans, for the most part, don't like losing or losers. McCain seems to grasp that as in his questioning of Abizaid. The problem it is not at all clear what 20,000 more troops will do. Unless we are in a position to restore order and clear and hold it seems rather poinless.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Is victory possible?

Not only is it "possible"; we've already won. The object of the war -- unsettling the Middle Eastern ethos -- has pretty much been accomplished.

Before the incursion it appeared that the Islamic mideast was much of one mind and that the Muslim Brotherhood types would be able to take down semi-secular authoritarian regimes, all to our consternation.

It now appears that Wahhabist, salafi, and more generalized traditional Sunni energies will go toward fighting Shia schismatics. Egypt will be stable for another decade; Syria's Sunni will compel its elite Alewites to move away from Iran; and with a little bit of luck Hamas will start sending fighters to Baghdad.

Smells like victory to me.

I loved the polite "I think if you looked back." America Abroad features some smart people, even if they do all pat each other on the back relentlessly (or, in case of the new younger fellow, faithfully transcribe), but they definitely don't want to anger friends at places like the American Enterprise Institute. We plebians merely avoid politics with certain friends. Makes me grateful to live outside DC.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

To be fair, I think this framing was Bill Richardson's before it was mydd's.

“The leading advocate for escalating the war is Senator John McCain. I have served with John in Congress and I respect him. But John McCain is wrong, dead wrong to think that we can solve Iraq’s political crisis through military escalation.”

“There are no quick or easy answers to the crisis in Iraq. Our choices are between bad options and worse ones. Some prefer military escalation. Some choose staying the course. These options are illusions. The only realistic choice we have is to stand down militarily and let the Iraqis stand up and face the political crisis which only they can resolve.”

“I’ve been to Iraq and Afghanistan. I worked in this region...we should harbor no illusions. This withdrawal will not be pretty. People will die. But fewer will die than if we stay. There are no guarantees that our departure will end the civil war, but it is sure to continue so long as we stay. The Iraqis might, or might not, resolve their political crisis. It is up to them. They distrust and fear one another, and this makes it very tough. But they share one goal – they don’t want to destroy their own country. To save it, they need to stop killing each other and start compromising. And we need to get out of the way.”

">http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/12/richardson_mcca.html>
Hotline Link

I am no military expert. But,

this will leave Casey high and dry

And watch new appointee Lt. General Odierno,

One of the absolute worst infantry commanders in the US army.

Tom Ricks (otherwise one of the most overrated war correspondents) got that one right:

"[Odierno} was known for "grabbing whole villages, because combat soldiers [were] unable to figure out who was of value and who was not," according to a subsequent investigation of the 4th Infantry Division's detainee operations by the Army inspector general's office. Its indiscriminate detention of Iraqis filled Abu Ghraib prison, swamped the U.S. interrogation system and overwhelmed the U.S. soldiers guarding the prison."

What Democrats can do is demand immediate withdrawal!

The reason they won't do it is because of fear of being criticized in the media and by the reich-wing hacks as "traitors" "weak", etc.

But, we just had an election on this issue and we won, they lost!

More to the point, there's simply no doubt that Iraq will be an even bigger failure in 2008 than it is now. So, what's going to be the most popular position in 2008? "Stay the course" or "get out now."

What Democrats seem to be afraid of is "what if somehow Iraq turns around and we get blamed for being "defeatist"?

It's only "defeatist" if you WIN. And we aren't going to win.

As Juan Cole has pointed out in his expert opinion:

The problem is that Iraq is a 500,000 troop problem. Another 40,000 are just going to anger the locals.

We don't have the troops to totally crush Iraq and the President won't get out. What does that leave but 2 more years of escalating disaster, millions more refugees and another 1/2 trillion dollars wasted?

What risk is there in coming out against that nightmare?

Democrats don't have to simply cut-off funding at this point. They can simply say "We won't cut off funds for the troops. We're demanding that the President set an immediate time-table for withdrawal." And they can run on that for a while.

When overwhelming popular pressure builds up in 2008 for immediate withdrawal, they can gradually turn off the spigot by slowly defunding.

Democrats will then be in position to crush the right in the election of 2008, since the Republicans will be saddled with the war.

Ellen

Well said. It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who steadfastly declare that we have "lost" this war.

Why is it so hard for this stubborn group of people to understand that the Iraq invasion was not, at its core, a military endeavor?

This was a political invasion and you are absolutely correct that the Bush administration, for the most part, has achieved its aims of a)Ousting Saddam Hussein, b)Establishing an increased military presence in the region (which will translate to a redeployment, not a drawdown), and c)Upset the political and military balance of power in the region.

Granted, the administration has done a very poor job in attaining its design. It has shot the proverbial wad and the Neoconservative fathers of this movement will likely not survive politically to fully enjoy the fruits of their endeavors.

Then again, long after Bush has left office corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel will still be cashing in on the destruction in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon.

And Dick Cheney just might return to Halliburton in 2009...

d) turning Iran into a world power

but sure if you want claim the Bushies are good at breaking eggs, that they are.

Gettysburg

You believe the goal of the invasion was chaos in the Middle East? Regardless of the rhetoric, we will not stay in Iraq indefinitely. When we leave, as things stand down, it seems a good bet that Iraq will implode. This will likely draw in Al Qaeda, Iran, Saudi Arabia.

You think this is Bush's idea of victory? Then better we should be defeated.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Daniel

It appears as if the consequences of an Iraqi implosion has only recently become an issue to be reckoned with by the administration.

It's unlikely that chaos was the ultimate aim of Bush's group in 2003. Rather, they more than likely carried an indifferent attitude as to what happened politically in Iraq so long as the goals were achieved. Whether or not they actually expected the Iraqi populace to embrace the Unity Government I don't know, but Bush certainly bet all the chips that full scale civil war could be avoided.

Nobody doubts misinformation and arrogance were the key components to this machine.

No 'surge'. That's just 'stay the course', and more of Bush's lifelong practice of extending the game until someone bails him out, no matter the cost... to someone else. We settled this question with the election. Continuing to discuss it, or agreeing to his demands only devalues it and keeps 'extending the game' for him. We've spoken, it's over, no more discussion.

Being the optimist, the silver lining I see in the escalation is the opportunity to break the Republican Party in a serious way in 2008. Imagine being a Republican like Senator Jon Kyle, on CNN today trying to sell the Bush/McCain policy as your Democratic opponent (Jack Reed, in this case) calmly repeats over and over that this is the wrong move?  I almost felt bad for Kyl.  He was working hard, trying his best to convey conviction and purpose...but he clearly had no idea how to explain how an escalation would be a good thing.

Something's gotta give.

At some point, Republicans in the House and Senate will need to turn on the White House or face complete decimation in '08. With all the Republican Senate seats in the air in 2008, there's no reason Dems can't shoot for a fillibuster-proof majority. Seriously. There will 21 Republican seats up for grabs and 12 Democratic seats.  Taking 10 of the 21 GOP seats seems crazy now, but if Bush's approval is in the low-20's, it won't seem crazy in 2008.

The message to Republicans should be clear: joing Dems in the resistance against the White House or face electoral annhilation in two years.  Not to mention what this will do to McCain's presidential aspirations.  As Digby has mentioned numerous times, McCain's motivation for calling for more troops is pretty transparent: he wants to distinguish himself from the Bush policy, so he can say, "if we only did it my way..." later on.  By taking his advice, this becomes McCain's war too.  In the moment he wants to create distance between himself and Bush, Dubbya is holding McCain tight, whispering sweet nothings in his ear, taking McCain down with his own failing presidency. Good luck with that '08, St. John.

It appears as if the consequences of an Iraqi implosion has only recently become an issue to be reckoned with by the administration.

Naw. How about Iraq was the fuse on the bomb ..which is Iran. The goal is geopolitical control of the oil and IRAN has far more oil than Iraq.  We needed an excuse to go to war with Iran, wihich Bush has already declared he is going to do prior to leaving office. So, the goal was oil and all Iraq was...was an appetizer the entree is Iran.

All you have to do is ask the question what was the benefit of going in with too few troops to IRAQ that was so much greater it out weighted the consequences of that seemingly incompetent tactical mauever?  The answer is to foment war with IRAN. Iran is the true oil treasure. So victory in IRAN was never the objective...the goal is to seize control of IraQ and Iran's oil.

The strategy was to get the entire ME embroiled in the war....we have succeeeded in getting Saudi Arabia into the war allied with Syria as they are SUNNI"S who are are going to align with the USA against the dominant SHIA in Iraq.

That was the goal...that is why victory will be defined as defeating the dominate Shia in the region to place the oil under SUNNI control.

Bush had to pull Saudi Arabia into the fight in order to achieve their goal of controlling the oil in the ME. 

If you understand that this is first and foremost an oil game, all the 'seemingly incompetent' tactics, make sense. Particularly. the fact that our troops are creating the civil insurgency and creating more terrorism while stirring up the intense tribal rivalry between the Sunni's and the Shia's...we need them fighting and we need "our friends" the Saudi's to come help their SUNNi faction so that IRAN will be drawn into the war.  That is the true reason for the "surge"  to draw IRAN into the war and have enough troops in place when the Saudi's come on board and together we are going to battle the SHIA/Shiite. 

So we are half-way to victory.

Let's get one thing straight and call things as they are, for once.

This is not a surge. It is an escalation.

Once these troops are in, they will not come out until the armed forces are completely broken, which Bush hopes will be after his term is up. Then he can blame someone else for it.

A desperate, drunken gambler will always go for one more hand or throw of the dice to recover his losses, until he is not only broke but has no credit left as well.

I was under the (obviously mistaken) impression that the new Congress was elected to stop this sort of thing, not provide cover for it.

This is not a surge. It is an escalation. Say it loud and often. Then ask, " Do you want this war to escalate?"

It seems that there is too much belief in the competence of this administration and thus a view that there is design behind its plans. Rumsfeld had a theory of warfare: , high tech low numbers of ground troops. He did not care really about after the fall of Saddem. He did not think about all the theories that more troops, not less, are needed to keep order. That clear and hold needs a lot more troops than search and destroy. Franks, amazingly went along with this. Bush raised not a question except how fast Franks could withdraw the troops that were sent to Iraq. Once Bremer was put in charge of the CPA it was peopled by inexperienced, incompetent Republican hacks. This was Katrina overseas. This is what happens went arrogant, uncurious, partisan people are allowed carte blanche without the power of the United States.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

J. McCutchen

It isn't all hard for those of us who believe that the US has lost the war in Iraq to appreciate that this venture was always more than a military one.

That problem, sad to say, belongs squarely in the court of the war's architects and advocates. Please don't project your failings on us

The sad fact is that insurgencies are defeated only rarely, and then by imposing the peace of the grave on hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. How much more can Washington let itself be implicated in such carnage? How far over the horizon do American troops need to pull back to escape the stench of such a victory? One answer: all the way home."

Martin van Creveld

White Rose

A Surge against Al Sadr certainly does seem to be a planned exhibition for the Iranians to witness.

The question that remains is: is the Bush administration that clever?

I've e-mailed Reid to tell him basically the same thing. I engourage others to do so.

Tom

My only point is that whatever you believe the Bush policy to have been. The means they chose was criminally inept. The war was probably lost at the December, 2001 meeting when no General stood up to Rumsfeld or at least questioned him.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Excellent observation and comment seydlitz89. Totally agree with you.

Sad, sad indeed, especially your astutely correct note that much of the DNC is in agreement.

It causes one to wonder just how much, if any, influence the rank and file citizens of this country have on important matters of policy.

The American ruling class is complex and inter-competitive, maintaining itself
through interacting families of high social standing who have similar life styles, corporate affiliations and memberships in elite social clubs and private schools.

The American ruling class has long been determined to be mostly self-perpetuating
maintaining its influence through policy-making institutions such as the
National Manufacturing Association, National Chamber of Commerce, Business Council, Business Roundtable, Conference Board, American Enterprise Institute, Council on Foreign Relations and other business-centered policy groups. These associations have long dominated policy decisions within the US government.

C. Wright Mills, in his 1956 book on the power elite, documents how World War
II solidified a trinity of power in the US that comprised corporate, military and
government elites in a centralized power structure motivated by class interests and
working in unison through "higher circles" of contact and agreement. Mills described
how the power elite were those “who decide whatever is decided” of major consequence.

More on the above quote can be found at this URL: http://www.projectcensored.org/downloads/Global_Dominance_Group.pdf

sanger. Yes, but this ruling class seems to have changed their attitudes towards "democracy" and the maintenance of the rule of law, which to me is more important. Max Weber and Walter Lippmann both doubted that democracy as an ideal form of government was possible at all in the modern mass state, but retaining the rule of law and a rational bureaucratic public administration seemed to be in everyone's interest. At some point our elite gave up not only on democracy, but also on the rule of law, establishing in effect a crudely-masked tyranny which wages wars as the continuation of private interests/profit by other means. . .

Interesting comments on the Surge plan . . . Stalingrad on the Tigris

The concept seems to be based on the notion that Shia militias exist because of Sunni violence against them rather than as expressions of a Shia drive to political dominance in Iraq. Based on that belief the authors seem to believe that if the additional US and Iraqi forces to be employed in the Capital area defeat (destroy?) the Sunni insurgent groups, then the Shia militia armies will "wither away" from a lack of need. . .

Of course as Juliette mentions, the real reason for this plan is to get Sadr, who Bush&Co seem to expect to simply sit back while the Sunni resistance is wiped out, and await his turn. . . all the while "our Iraqis" - fighting with us - serve the empire loyally . . . not bloody likely.

What a splendid recipe for a stab-in-the-back mythos!

Yeah, and what will follow?

That hope would have more substance if one could avoid a stab-in-the-back mythos that would drive accused Democrat politicians further out towards the militarists just to prove that they wouldn't have lost Iraq if they had been responsible in year 2007.

So, do not do their mission easier!

Do you mean do not make their mission easier. If you do screw their mission and screw them. Get our troops out, save their lives, fight the Republicans tooth and nail, have some backbone and end this idiotic policy, and impeach and convict the immoral madman who is going to send more Americans to their graves for nothing except his ego.

Tom