the AEI report

Measuring Security and Stability in Iraq Report, from the DOD.

I don’t see how it is any less important to increase security in Iraq now then it has ever been. If the criticism is (now, not just four years ago) that we are not able to quash the insurgency because we do not have enough troops, then the answer is to send more troops.

Do you see how you are changing your argument? *That* is what is known as “moving the goalposts.”

I’m not saying how many, because I don’t know, but I’ll go along with what the military leaders in Iraq say.

You’ll go along with what they say? Great, so let’s look at what they said about the surge:

On Nov 15, 2006, “Gen. John P. Abizaid, chief of the U.S. Central Command…said adding U.S. troops to Iraq would discourage Iraqis from taking the lead in their own security — something he predicted they may be ready to do in as little as 12 months.”

“We can put in 20,000 more Americans tomorrow and achieve a temporary effect. But when you look at the overall American force pool that’s available out there, the ability to sustain that commitment is simply not something that we have right now with the size of the Army and the Marine Corps,” he said. He later told a House panel that exceeding current troop levels would place “a tremendous strain” on the Army.”

So there is what the Military Leader in Iraq testified regarding a surge. Will you go along with that?

The Joint Chiefs were recommending against a surge. Among other things, specifically:

“[The Joint Chiefs] fear that throwing too much support to the Shiite majority may lead Sunni nations in the region to step up support of Sunni insurgents, and that a crackdown on Iraq’s largest Shiite militia, the Mahdi army, may instigate more interference by Iran.

So, the surge was *not* supported by the Joint Chiefs. Will you go along with what they say?

Once again, Bush ignored the advice of the military, and went with a strategy advocated by the AEI, the same group advocating for the invasion of Iraq in the first place, one of whose members was Paul “hard to imagine” Wolfowitz.

Jen continues:

“Furthermore, as Stumbley has been at pains to point out, the troop surge is actually improving things.”

Sorry Jen, but “milblogs,” though ful of touching stories and upbeat talk, are not a good way to find the whole story.

For example – the article he quotes is talking about the progress that needs to be made in Dora, where “the Sunni areas are filled with trash and sewage.” But it doesn’t say that Dora was one of the neigborhoods included in the previous *surges* in Operation Together Forward, Phases I and II.

*No one* argues that things might not get *temporarily* better during the surge (although as “sectarian violence” has diminshed, other violence is up). The crucial question is what kind of *lasting* effect will the surge have? The historical evidence that it will have a lasting effect is not compelling.

So, that said, will you now agree that:

1. The Chief of CENTCOM and the other Joint Chiefs advised Bush against the surge.

2. A *surge* type crackdown to ensure security in Baghdad has been tried twice previously, and has not worked.

You said you would go along with what they say. Still feel that way?

Jen concludes with the challenge:

“If I am wrong, and you really only want us to go about things the right way, then please explain to me the current benefits to the U.S., and to the overall war against the islamofascists, of a present pull-out of American troops in Iraq.”

Jen, please explain to me where I have advocated for a “present pull-out” of American troops?

I am on record here as supporting the Reid plan, which provides for no such thing as a “present pull-out.”

Consider this:

According to the latest Iraq Report for the DOD, as of February, there were approx 328,700+ Iraqi security forces.

It goes on to say that their most significant shortcoming is in planning and executing logistics and sustainment requirements, something the Ried bill allowed for.

328,000 security forces in Iraq? And our guys are doing extended deployments, three and four times?

Our generals are telling us a surge will be a “tremendous strain” on the military, and Bush does it anyway, because the AEI advised it? The same people who advised going in with the smaller force the first time, again against the Army Chief of Staff’s advice?

Who’s interested in “doing it right”?

Yes, the situation has changed and we can not start now as if we just completed the invasion and nothing else has happened. In fact, perhaps if we had sent in 300,000 troops then we could have been slowly drawing them down all along, who knows! In any case, I don’t care at the moment. You seem to think the most important thing in all this is to pick apart Rumsfeld’s reasons and deprecate them. You aren’t even looking at it from the point of view of finding where we made the mistakes so that we can correct them. You just want to say: “He was wrong and now everything is lost so let’s just go home.” Like we are playing some sort of game, and the buzzer just went off ending the period.

I don’t see how it is any less important to increase security in Iraq now then it has ever been. If the criticism is (now, not just four years ago) that we are not able to quash the insurgency because we do not have enough troops, then the answer is to send more troops. I’m not saying how many, because I don’t know, but I’ll go along with what the military leaders in Iraq say. They are saying something different now than the joint chiefs said before the invasion, because, as you say, things have changed, but they are not suddenly saying that, yeah, fewer troops really was better.

Furthermore, as Stumbley has been at pains to point out, the troop surge is actually improving things. If anything, this should make you and I gratified to know we were right all along. But now, suddenly, you are pining for the old days before the surge and trying to convince us we ought to end it.

Again, to me, it appears that your talent and intellect are being put to use, not to find solutions and advocate for them, but merely to attack anything the Bush administration does.

If I am wrong, and you really only want us to go about things the right way, then please explain to me the current benefits to the U.S., and to the overall war against the islamofascists, of a present pull-out of American troops in Iraq.

So I guess we will make no further progress on this point.

However you go on to write:

“Here is the point that you continue to refuse to confront: If we sent in too few troops to do the job, the solution is to send in more troops. If you think we could do the job better with fewer troops, then you are on Rumsfelds side.”

Here is where I think your reasoning goes wrong, tell me if you agree. I think the point should more appropriately read as follows:

“If we sent in too few troops to do the job, we should have sent in more troops.”

Can you see how it might not necessarily follow that because sending in 300,000 troops 4 years ago was a good idea, putting them in now is automatically a great idea?

Take a minute to reflect on all the things that have happened since the invasion which might make us think twice before virtually tripling our forces there (if that were even possible now).

See, UB, it’s not just me!

“you could just want us to fail.”

Jen understands, doesn’t she, UB?

I happen to agree completely that Rumsfeld was wrong about the number of troops an occupation would take. I hate the fact that the administration was so afraid for so long to even use the term occupation, and they seem clearly to have avoided serious planning for one.

But that was four years ago. In the years of occupation since then the idea of increasing troop strength has been brought up many, many times, and the political, propaganda reasons for limiting the troops have been presented often. You seem not to recognize that when Rumsfeld et al were warning that more troops would mean greater cost and a lengthier occupation that they were keenly aware both of how they would be perceived in the Arab world (as they were constantly battling the perception that we wanted to control Iraq as some sort of colony) and also how much political support we would recieve at home. Furthermore, it was hoped that a limited American military force in Iraq would require Iraqi’s to step up and take over sooner rather than later.

Personally, I think Rumsfeld was wrong, and that we would get more support from the average Iraqi if we did a better job of keeping them safe. Since you seem to keep asking us to blame Rumsfeld and say he was wrong, you would think we would be in agreement, but we are not. In order for you to truly believe Rumsfeld is to blame, you would actually have to have something to blame him for. That is to say, you would have to believe that we need more troops in Iraq. But you dont. You want us to both blame Rumsfeld for not sending enough troops and at the same time believe that less troops is better. I’m sorry, but that’s just idiotic.

Here is the point that you continue to refuse to confront: If we sent in too few troops to do the job, the solution is to send in more troops. If you think we could do the job better with fewer troops, then you are on Rumsfelds side. Oh, I guess there is a third option: you could just want us to fail.

They argue out of a servitude to entropy. To degrade and prevent progress, they argue about everything and anything and it matters not what can be done to build up the wall and fix it, what matters to folks like Unk is trying to tear down people and complaining about how the wall isn’t their wall.

No amount of legitimacy can make your logic and reasoning less bastardized, Unk.

But since you feel so left out and lonely by not being told where to look, try this one:

http://www.outsidethewire.com/blog/outside-the-wire/dora-and-west-rasheed-districts.html

An excerpt, if you feel too stigmatized to read the whole thing:

“Is there hope for Baghdad? Yes. The additional U.S. forces from the surge are already showing limited signs of success. They are not the signs quantified by London or D.C. think tanks.

Which is why I will be back in Dora and West Rasheed in a few months.”

…but it’s only written by a guy who spent three weeks in the area, instead of a correspondent writing from the green zone for CNN or the NYT, so it can’t be true, right?

You can always ignore me, you know, if my comments trouble you so.