nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 14, 2008 11:46 PM

"So now that the crystal vase is smashed and the shards have been on the floor for 3 years (being scattered and slicing up people's feet at the same time) you want the US public to entrust the /same administration/ with "doubling down"? You are aware of current polls concerning the public's view of the invasion, its conduct, and the preferred course of action?"

Bush is the only one making these decisions till 2008, not the public. This is not a direct democracy. If Bush wants to double down, that what we will do, and I actually think the public will either support it or be split down the middle. Most of the moderates unhappy with the war are only unhappy because they see us as LOSING. If we were winning, which is very very hard to pull off given the fact that the media spin is so severe, polling would be overwhelmingly in favor of the war.

Remember Bush's approval when Saddam was caught? I rest my case.

Americans want a win, and they don't want to cut and run. That is why the congressional democrats, who do want to cut and run, are too afraid to openly say so: they are afraid of an electoral backlash.

Posted by: Kaltes at December 14, 2006 07:10 PM

> That approach was and is a miserable
> failure. We have to learn from that
> mistake and start letting the military
> run this war and not the state department.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that _prior_ to the invasion of Iraq the military and the State Departement were on exactly the same page: if there were to be an invasion, it should consist of overwhelming military force _followed_ by overwhelming occupational force and resources, resulting in an immediate reconstruction of Iraqi society.

It was the administration that has been in power for 6 years now, back by the political party in essential control for 12, that made the decision to invade with barely adequate force and then "not do" reconstruction.

So now that the crystal vase is smashed and the shards have been on the floor for 3 years (being scattered and slicing up people's feet at the same time) you want the US public to entrust the /same administration/ with "doubling down"? You are aware of current polls concerning the public's view of the invasion, its conduct, and the preferred course of action?

Or perhaps you prefer Admiral King's plan of not telling "civilians" (= Citzens) anything about an Administration's military adventures until they are over? Very democratic - prehaps we need an invasion to restore the Republic here.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer at December 14, 2006 08:22 AM

1) Ahh my bad Noah for the hulk caps I am dog sick and not feeling to happy go go. You will be alright tighten up.

2)Those are the same metrics that many have used to beat this war effort down over a 4yr campaign. Daily casualty numbers, bleeding hearts hammering is it worth the cost. Never ending Sheenan coverage on and on. I never heard you then mention “wrong metrics” then.
-But those are the metrics you measure War, in Historical context of previous wars. You cannot measure things on warm fuzzes, or bars that have never been accomplished in history. Fact is militarily this war has way over achieved any possible historical expectations on all levels. You got to give me that.

“In an insurgency, the center of gravity -- the objective -- is to win over the people themselves”

This part I liked Noah. So do you think we have more Iraqi’s or less Iraqi’s that like the US now or before Saddam? Most importantly do you think the terrorist have more Iraqi’s or less Iraqi’s that like them now? You must remember Iraq & Afghanistan were both highly hostile population to begin with against US and rather sympathetic to supportive to terrorist. Again you can’t start your basis for measure from some pie in the sky bar you have to start at what we began with and move from there. We have way more allies in Iraq today than before. Terrorist have made enemies on a scale that is way more than I ever expected in Iraq.

Ready for some Ugly Truth Noah….Every time the terrorist bomb a market we may not get new warm fuzzy I love you allies but we do get more “my enemy is my enemy” allies because we to have been bleed by the terrorist and chose to fight. Again we don’t need Iraqi’s to love US we just need them respect US and control their terrorist.

“Winning or losing comes down to whether we've made Iraq, the Middle East -- and, by extension, the United States -- a safer, more stable place”

I agree.
But wouldn’t you agree on 9-11 that the “status quo” was proven not adequate on top of multiple terrorist attacks on US in the run up to 9-11 the climax of 3k dead civilians hundreds of billions lost in economy when the people demanded change.
If so you must agree that changes had to be made. And it is unrealistic to believe that we could take a hostile population and in just a few years make everything all calm and warm fuzzy. Expectations were set too high Generation or two should be more like it sees Japan/Germany. The definition of change is chaos of some level. The change required in the ME is so drastic to expect anything short major chaos turbulence would be just un-realistic.

I will buy that, I know a few guys and I try not to 20question em to death but things are tense and bloody right now and expected to get worse at least for sometime to come until we again step in and beat down the vying groups into more manageable levels again. The blood letting will continue for a long time to come however but compared to the alternative of pulling out the current blood letting is nothing.

But above all even thou nobody wants to do another day or see anyone else do one they fear most US losing this war on the political front and giving up here at home making all those that gave all in vain, that is unacceptable. That is a wrong that no one will accept and everyone agrees victory is the only option even if that means all or nothing, everyday everyone in Iraq puts all on the line. Many have paid all we cannot allow that to be for nothing.

“You ask when was the last time a group of insurgents ran over an IP station? Unfortunately, I think you're asking the wrong questions, too”

Either way you missed my point. My point was that shows progress. I remember two years ago going round and round on how the IP IA could get trained up the Shia were capable and improving. Well time has passed and they are holding their ground and on top of that even going too far in fighting back. When this too far hits civilians that’s bad when it hits terrorist skipping the Red Tape well is it so bad? Don’t forget even if we win the Iraqi’s wont be doing it truly western style for generations. Most of the outright murder against civilians is not IP generated but Mehdi or AQ/Bathist types hitting each others civilians.

One thing Noah I imagine you could easily agree with although not for the same reasons. Bush has failed US, a president’s job during war is not strategy that’s generals business but to rally the people and keep them rallied. That Bush has done little to none. Bush has stood by and allowed impossible bars to be set for standards, he let continuous swipes and Sedition go by with no rebuttal or challenge. The case, the consequences of failure, the historical expectations have been left to a Hollywood and Media that no longer see themselves as Americans but World Citizens what ever the hell that maybe I don’t know but it does say who they feel their fiduciary obligation is to.

Sorry for the rant all. I just can’t stand the idea of Bin Laden sittin around laughing at how by Allah’s grace him and a couple thousand jihadiis dropped the paper tiger. And worse how if we lose our children are going to have to fight a war with sacrifises and slaughter our leaders today can’t even speak openly about. History will not be kind to US if we lose over pure heartlessness.

Posted by: C-Low at December 13, 2006 10:56 PM

Sheesh, so much defeatism. The whole point of "doubling down"* is that we need the extra troops to take down Al-Sadr and the militias. I don't see this as a controversial thing. We backed off and did not crush these people before because we wanted to "involve them in the political process." That approach was and is a miserable failure. We have to learn from that mistake and start letting the military run this war and not the state department.

Get in there, send Al-Sadr to go see Zarqawi in Hell, take down the militias eliminating them as threats and rivals to government authority, and THEN people will join the political process merely because it is a choice between that or nothing.

Maybe the sunnis will keep fighting. Their loss. Even if everything hits the fan and a civil war breaks out, you will end up with peace. The Shiites will crush the Sunnis, subjugate them and get their payback, then you will have stability with the kurds and shiites dominating the country as partners. Yes it might be bloody, yes everyone will b*tch and whine and blame it all on the USA, but at the end of the day you will have a democracy, middle-east style, and we will have eliminated an avowed enemy (Saddam), caused the utter humiliation and loss of power of his ruling elite, and eliminated a major future proliferation risk.

Overall, I see Iraq as a success. Money well spent. We need to remember that even if the neocon dreams didn't come true, even if SOME Iraqis (Sunnis) end up worse off than under Saddam, and even if there is massive bloodshed, at the end of the day, the USA is safer regardless of those things. We might not have a 'clean' victory that passes the 'global test' as a nation-building exercize, but we will have successfully accomplished most of what we set out to do.

The only real way the US goals could be defeated would be if the likes of Al Sadr took over, so that is why we need to go in, kill him, and crush his following. With him eliminated, even if things deteriorate anyway, it really doesn't matter for the people in the US. If the Iraqis want to ruin their country and kill eachother, that's their problem.

*(double down is the appropriate term. You do not need to double our forces, it is merely a phrase that means, when you are losing, to increase your bet in an attempt to turn things around and win, with the added risk that entails. here, I dont see much extra risk. adding troops and attacking the militias is nothing new, we did it before. It is not like our troops could possibly lose. we will wipe the floor with them just like last time.)

Posted by: Kaltes at December 13, 2006 07:56 PM

C: Two things.

1. When we speak in private, you're mellow, rational, and polite. So why go ALL CAPS RARARARRR GRRR HULK SMASH in the comments?

2. When you say "this war is a unbelievable success," I'm afraid you're using the wrong metrics. Winning or losing isn't about the number of soldiers killed, the amount of treasure spent, or the size of the territory held. This is World War II, and this isn't a game of Risk, OK? In an insurgency, the center of gravity -- the objective -- is to win over the people themselves. Can you honestly say we've been successful at that?

Winning or losing comes down to whether we've made Iraq, the Middle East -- and, by extension, the United States -- a safer, more stable place. We do that by winning over the population. I think it's awfully hard to argue that's what has happened in Iraq.

Look, I don't know how many contacts you have who have been through Iraq recently. I have a fair number -- talked to two of 'em, just today. And pretty much all of 'em now think the country is in much, much worse shape than it was 12, 24, or 36 months ago. What's more, they are awfully pessimistic about the years to come.

I wish that wasn't the case. Maybe "doubling down" (metaphorically, not literally, speaking) will fix the situation. I hope it will. But I'm pretty damn skeptical.

You ask when was the last time a group of insurgents ran over an IP station? Unfortunately, I think you're asking the wrong questions, too. Why run the station over, when you're already wearing the uniform?

Posted by: Noah Shachtman at December 13, 2006 07:34 PM

Double Down??

As someone else said:

Since the Pentagon has decided to discuss its new strategy in gambling parlance, it should at least use the proper terminology. Today's LA Times article says that a Pentagon official has referred to the option of sending more troops in to Iraq as a "double down" strategy. The reference is to a bet in blackjack when, based on the cards that have been dealt, the player seeks to maximize a payoff that is more likely to occur in that hand, given the probabilities. The double down is a calculated bet, made from a position of strength when the odds are favorable to the bettor.

In Iraq, we are certainly not in a situation where the odds are favorable to winning. Our bet is not a double down. Let's call it what it is: double or nothing. This is is more like the gambler who has been on a bad losing streak deciding to empty the savings account and put all of his chips on red, hoping that the roulette wheel will spin his way and bring him back close to even. Double or nothing is a desperation play. It is an ill-advised way to gamble, with chips or human lives, and such a strategy inevitably leads to another appropriate gambling term. Gambler's ruin: winding up completely broke.

Posted by: TB at December 13, 2006 07:01 PM

Noah you come on, you know full well that there is only three ways to defeat a insurgency
1) Horrific Brute force ala WW2 or worse absolutley beating the population into pacification, rule through fear of US. You and I both know you and your like minded type would never sign off on such a campain. You would flip out screaming.

2) Attrition and outlasting a insurgency. This is the middle ground Rummy and boys chose. This plan doesn't need boots everywere being targets, instead just moving around keeping things from going over the edge while the IA IP formed up. By the way when was the last time the Insurgents overran a IA base or IP station? I would call that progress but hey lets concentrate on the half empty part. Minimal force is all you need in a non-brute force approach going nice guy hearts and minds BS looking to win in the long term. Thousands of extra troops doing patrols wouldn't help if the rules of engagement are something that would fit cops in NY. And unless you are ready for option 1 don't even try to act like you are ready for FULL ALT NOAH.
3) This one will make many sniff cough scream freak out. Expand the war. Iran and Syria are both supporting the insurgencies. Put the fight in thier house bomb thier infastructure and central government control, supply thier insurgents and make them work on thier own first. Force them to cut support by nessecaty of it going to thier own homefronts. Does no one realize maybe just maybe this plan is what worked with AQ they are forced to put all they got into Afghanistan and Iraq rather than US. It will get real ugly real fast but after the initial flash it will calm down and become containable. Either way a nuclear Iran cannot be allowed and spreading out our enemies resources more may help turn the fight in our favor (playing to our strengths HUGE resources and expert ability at breaking stuff like Government infastructure or Iranian/Syrian Tank divisions sent to squash X uprising). Afghanistan cooled off alot for along time after we hit Iraq before they reorganized. Either way its ALL OR NOTHING. And worse case senerio we pull out anyway leaving a ME in a territorial civil war but at least without Nukes.

I still find it PITIFULL and a pox on our nation that we are getting ready to become the first nation in history to ever surrender a war effort becuase the enemy is killing to many of his OWN CIVILIANS. That is so heartless makes me wonder if America is even worthy of life.

This war is a unbelievable success so far HISTORICALLY SPEAKING.

Casualties historicaly minor.

Economy: no war bonds, no war taxes, still clipping a decent growth rate.

Military Economic Draw: including the supplementals we are around what 4-4.5% GDP psst that is less than our PEACE TIME budget in the 80's.

Military Civilian Draw: like you said NO DRAFT, pure volunteer force is gettin it done so far, and the military size is something like .05% of the population .05% a 1/2% that is not even begining to tap our potential. WW2 was well into the DOUBLE DIGITS

The constant doom and gloom who is PARTISAN MOTIVATED BS and out right treason in my opinion and at a minimum Sedition of a war effort.

Show me on a Historical comparison were Iraq is a failure not some pie in the sky bar set purposly to be un acheivable by some pansie, but historical comparison. Show me a comp were 2hostile populations were invaded, conquered, and occupied for 4+yrs absolutley changing thier culture from dictator/king queen to near Democratic tpye and a Socialist/Communist economy to a nearly capitolist type show me a comp NOah. Whatcha got. Don't say Japan Germany we are still in both 60+yrs running and we already discussed option 1.

The only one possible is the civilian slaughter our enemy is doing to his own people. And even their Historically speaking that is not out of step. Hell even given the 650k number we are only now 4yrs on reaching the level of the mass graves Saddam filled the last time we called for Moderates to rise up and join US only to abandon them on the field 91'.

Posted by: C-Low at December 13, 2006 05:33 PM

I'm not going to wade too far into this policy debate except to say this: The Army met its 2006 recruiting and retention goals by spending about three times more on bonuses and perks than it did five years ago. The Army spent $200 million on bonuses in 2000 and almost $700 in 2005. That's not exactly peanuts out of a total (Army) personnel budget of $40 billion.

Posted by: Robot.Economist at December 13, 2006 03:03 PM

yeah, what BT n Cranky said.

The only way the Army did, or can, meet reqruitment goals is by handing out "signup bonus"....one hears of figures like $38,000....

how then, with this "cash strapped" military, can anyone reasonably expect to build up the Army/Marines?

a little pragmatic logic, and truth would seem to be in order, more and more, every day.

yeah, right

Posted by: campbell at December 13, 2006 02:41 PM

Oh, please, C-Low. It might have been a good idea to make Iraq an "all or nothing" war. But the Bush/Rummy strategy has been anything but. Four quick examples:

* Suggested troop levels slashed by more than 50%.

* No cuts to major weapons programs, like the DD(X), which have nothing to do with counter-insurgency.

* Barely any Arabic language training, even 3+ years into the conflict.

* No draft.

This isn't "all or nothing." It's limping along. It's doing just enough to fail.

Posted by: Noah Shachtman at December 13, 2006 02:41 PM

War is ALL OR NOTHING. On 9-11 when we decided to go offensive and make it a war it was all or nothing then on. There is no option but DEFEAT or VICTORY (whatever cost victory may demand).

In WW2 after we invaded Italy pushed all the way to Rome before realizing the soft Underbealy wasn't quite so soft for invading Germany. We didn't surrender we shored up and hit Normandy and the rest is history.

By the way we lost more men in the crossing of the river enroute to Cassino Monestary in a matter of hours during the Italy Gustav line campain than we have in this "failure" we call Iraq.

Little history for those who believe the Propoganda about Iraq being a unbelievable disaster;
3) GUSTAV Line & Battles for Cassino - Jan - May 1944. An estimated 180,000 men were killed or wounded during this 4-month period. The British had a hard time on the east coast because of the many rivers and ridges that crossed their paths. On the Cassino front, or GUSTAV Line, the US had a set back at the crossing of the Rappido River. The II Corps were landed further north behind German lines at Anzio. Both fronts became a stalemate after 3 attacks were made against the GUSTAV Line. The Allies made a controversial decision to bomb the abbey Monte Cassino.

Funny how in just one generation seperating WW2 and Iraq the nations heart/will/stomach has been so mortally wounded. Makes you wonder What Happened?

Posted by: C-Low at December 13, 2006 02:33 PM

I don't think "double down" is a literal strategy. 20 thousand footsoldiers in Baghdad won't help. 20 thousand advisors might help speed the training process. 240 thousand footsoldiers in Baghdad will help and is needed, but won't or can't happen. I think the US will sneak out of Iraq's backdoor when no one is looking.

Posted by: BT at December 13, 2006 02:11 PM

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't "doubling down" require a total of 240,000 troops, not an additional 20,000? And if so (a) where are the additional 120,000 coming from or (b) what will the 20,000 accomplish?

Seems to me this is about running out the clock and letting the next President take the blame for the ensuing disaster.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer at December 13, 2006 01:48 PM