The Bush administration knows "the surge" isn't working
Looking at the stories today, it seems apparent that the Bush administration has come to the realization that "the surge" isn't going to work.
First, we have the front page WaPo story this morning saying that Petraeus and the commanders in Iraq are developing a "New Strategy for War." (But... But.... I was told to wait on my criticism because this strategy wasn't fully implemented yet.)
To me, this "new plan" sounds like a recipe for a Lebanon style government with US forces taking on the "policing Hezbullah" role. (and that's going so well...)
Next, we have this Guardian report, that White House figures are exploring ways to "internationalize" the war.
And, we should probably also add yesterday's Hearst article pointing out that the deployment schedules are structured such that there's also the availability for a substantial increase in ground combat troops.
Surge 1.0 was theorized to create some improvement in security, "a breathing space" during which the Iraqi government would rapidly resolve their political issues. That's not happening, and now it looks like different elements in the command structure are trying to set up alternatives for what to do next.
Meanwhile in Iraq....
(And, while we're being told to wait another six months, "With eight days still to go, May 2007 caps the deadliest six-month period for America of the entire Iraq war...")
First, we have the front page WaPo story this morning saying that Petraeus and the commanders in Iraq are developing a "New Strategy for War." (But... But.... I was told to wait on my criticism because this strategy wasn't fully implemented yet.)
Top U.S. commanders and diplomats in Iraq are completing a far-reaching campaign plan for a new U.S. strategy, laying out military and political goals and endorsing the selective removal of hardened sectarian actors from Iraq's security forces and government.
To me, this "new plan" sounds like a recipe for a Lebanon style government with US forces taking on the "policing Hezbullah" role. (and that's going so well...)
Next, we have this Guardian report, that White House figures are exploring ways to "internationalize" the war.
The Bush administration is developing plans to "internationalise" the Iraq crisis, including an expanded role for the United Nations, as a way of reducing overall US responsibility for Iraq's future and limiting domestic political fallout from the war as the 2008 election season approaches.
And, we should probably also add yesterday's Hearst article pointing out that the deployment schedules are structured such that there's also the availability for a substantial increase in ground combat troops.
Surge 1.0 was theorized to create some improvement in security, "a breathing space" during which the Iraqi government would rapidly resolve their political issues. That's not happening, and now it looks like different elements in the command structure are trying to set up alternatives for what to do next.
Meanwhile in Iraq....
An Iraqi parliamentary committee has failed to finalise an agreement on amending key articles in the constitution, one of the political benchmarks Washington says are important to end sectarian violence.
(And, while we're being told to wait another six months, "With eight days still to go, May 2007 caps the deadliest six-month period for America of the entire Iraq war...")
9 Comments:
Mike,
I know I don't comment much anymore: I simply don't have time to be as involved as I used to. But you may or may not know that I manage to at least skim every one of your posts.
You do a great job of keeping up, and I think it goes largely unnoticed.
Anyway, I just got back from Amsterdam where I spent the weekend with a good friend who just spent the last two years as a foreign correspondent in Iraq.
As you can imagine, I asked a lot of questions and listened intently. Even though my friend is a war critic (especially vis-a-vis the planning), his take on the situation has given me pause. I'll be summarizing our conversation soon. I'll be sure to let you know when I do.
PT
By Praguetwin, at 3:44 PM
Tahnks a ton. That is an incredibly valuable comment.
I know for a fact a number of people read but don't leave comments, both from the links I see placed to my posts, and from comments I get from people, friends and family, but sometimes, that little voice creeps in telling me there's nobody there.
About 6 months ago I made a decision to to stop trying to promote the blog, stop trying to tell myself how great I am, and blog primarily for me.
I find it a useful way to force myself to think about the implications of what I read.
I think it's gotten better since then, but it's still nice to hear someone's out there.
So, thanks.
By mikevotes, at 4:03 PM
I certainly enjoy reading your posts and your comments. You show a sort of balanced skepticism.
Bottom line I'm afraid Petraeus and Co can keep coming up with thick tomes but Al Quaida will keep coming up with ways to sabotage whatever they do.
By Anonymous, at 6:14 PM
Yeah. Al Qaeda, and the anti-US violent groups in general, have all the advantages.
They get to sit and watch US tactics then choose when, where, and how the attacks take place. They always get the first shot, and have the ability to almost always escape.
On top of that, they have IED's, snipers, and mortar fire which is largely costless from their side.
They can "get at" the US, the Iraqi forces, and Iraqi civilians pretty much at will.
Also, I would add, that they seem to have a far better feel for the politics and sentiment among the Iraqi people, which in the end, is the high ground.
So long as Al Qaeda has the ability to conduct large scale attacks and assassinations, the US will never get the degree of cooperation they need from the Iraqi people.
And, no, I don't have an answer.
I don't think there is one.
By mikevotes, at 6:27 PM
"Blogging for me."
It is clear that you do: no advertisements, not even a site meter. Rare.
Although, a site meter would at least verify what you probably already know: there are plenty of people who read this blog regularly.
By Praguetwin, at 1:27 AM
Yeah, but conceptually, I'm against a sitemeter.
I understand you can have just a counter, but I don't think visitors here should expect to be reported to some outside company, you know?
I'm aware that google probably tracks you, as they own blogger, but I shouldn't add to that.
It's a weirdo privacy thing with me. You're my guest, and I shouldn't authorize somebody to watch you.
I know it doesn't make any sense, but the tracker concept just treads on my privacy instincts.
It's just me.
By mikevotes, at 8:24 AM
Mike you do a great job with this blog. In a comment on another blog, I linked to one of your stories and said that you were a "human news aggregator."
You always seem to find those news gems that others miss.
By Anonymous, at 1:23 PM
Well, Thanks.
I always figure that enough good links offsets my occasionally discursive writing.
By mikevotes, at 3:31 PM
2015-12-19keyun
cheap oakleys
abercrombie
canada goose outlet
cheap toms shoes
longchamp handbags
celine handbags
ugg australia outlet
christian louboutin shoes
oakley sunglasses
fit flops
uggs on sale
kate spade handbags
coach outlet store online
ugg outlet
ugg boots clearance
oakley outlet
abercrombie
ugg clearance outlet
ugg boots
nike huarache white
christian louboutin shoes
ralph lauren outlet
ugg boots outlet
oakley sunglasses
p90x
michael kors handbags
canada goose sale
polo ralph lauren
michael kors outlet online sale
retro 11
ugg outlet store
hollister uk
true religion
celine bags
jordan 11 concord
vans sneakers
ugg boots
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet store
By 柯云, at 7:22 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home