Bush's Plan to Send More Troops to Iraq

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:28:31 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update: The latest Gallup/USA Today poll shows 61% of Americans oppose increased troop levels. Democrats, meanwhile, consider their options to the President's proposed plan to increase troop levels.

******

Wednesday night, President Bush will address the nation with details of his new plan for Iraq. The plan calls for sending more troops to Iraq.

Think Progress is tracking congressional response to a plan that adds more troops.

....only seven lawmakers have given their public support to Bush’s escalation plan, twenty-three have come out in opposition, and fifteen have said they will withhold judgement for now.

Arianna has a scathing commentary on the plan.

When it comes to the White House's latest "new approach" to Iraq, we are definitely entering "the lunatics have taken over the asylum" territory.

....It's one thing to believe you're Napoleon. It's quite another to send more young people to die in your Waterloo.

Buzzflash notes that neocons have said a bigger surge than the one planned by Bush is necessary:

We need to cut through the confusion. Bringing security to Baghdad--the essential precondition for political compromise, national reconciliation and economic development--is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail.

The answer, Buzzflash notes, is for Congress to pull the plug now.

As bad as the planned "surge" may be, the worst thing we can do would be to allow a compromised increase with fewer troops over less time than Bush is expected to announce.

The White House is betting public opinion will fall on the side of wanting a concrete plan for winning over immediate or even phased withdrawal.

I don't believe there is a military solution that can win the war in Iraq. I think Bush knows this and is simply trying to reverse the political tide against him.

He plans to redirect our attention by inundating us with intricate details of a confusing new plan for government in Iraq. As the Times reports,

The speech is expected to contain a series of goals for the Iraqi government. "This could be fairly complex, and it's going to take people a little bit of time to think it through, and we will spend a lot of time talking about it because it's important to do so," the White House press secretary, Tony Snow, said.

I think it's more important to talk about the escalating troop deaths and whether his plan can stop the senseless killing of innocent Iraqis.

Why not just bring the troops home and send some of the saved money to Iraq to help them get their new government off the ground? Because if they fail, then Bush will have failed. As Arianna notes, it appears he still harbors delusions of grandeur for his foolhardy war in Iraq.

< New Saddam Hanging Video Shows His Neck Ripped Open | Bush Approval Rate on Iraq Sinks to 26% >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Bush's Plan to Send More Troops to Iraq | 42 comments (42 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Oh yeah (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Che's Lounge on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:42:40 PM EST

Let the escalation begin.

That's cold man...cold (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by kdog on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:53:28 PM EST

I'm against excessive govt. spending as much as the next guy...but this is about life and death.

why was your money (none / 0) (#7)
by Edger on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:04:18 PM EST

the first thing you thought of?


: so lives were third (none / 0) (#13)
by Edger on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:14:48 PM EST

or even farther down the list?

kdog (none / 0) (#19)
by Sailor on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 09:05:48 PM EST

google:
narious site:talkleft.com

I'll wait ... ... ... see what I mean!?


: I'm well aware.... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by kdog on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 08:50:24 AM EST

I'm merely trying to stay civil in the face of great frustration as to how some people think.

Swopa (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by soccerdad on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:53:43 PM EST

over at Needlenose lays out more details of the plan.

He calls it a "Masterpiece of cognitive Dissonance"

The summary:

Does everybody see how this works? We tell the Shiite government that it's imperative to "ease sectarian tensions," and Team Shiite comes up with a plan for Kurds and Americans to fight Sunnis. Uh, if the Kurds show up, that is.
Does a lot to explain how we got to this point in Iraq, doesn't it?

If this isn't (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by kdog on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 06:57:07 PM EST

grounds for impeachment...I don't know what is.

We need a hero, a miracle, something...greedy sadistic psychopaths are in charge.

Pull out now.... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by kdog on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:13:22 PM EST

I'm with ya there.

I am not as confident in the Dems to stop it. We shall see and I will hope.

Bush will need (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Che's Lounge on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:30:04 PM EST

another month long vacation (hide-out) after this momentous decision. He must be exhausted. After all, it's HARD WORK escalating a war nobody with an IQ higher than their shoe size agrees with.

Increased casualty rates is part of the plan (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by chemoelectric on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 10:23:05 PM EST

A thing to keep in mind is that Bush is suffering from a severe personality disorder. He is driven to defy anyone who gets into a dispute with him, which the voters did in November. We want him to get the troops out of Iraq and stop the casualties? 'Well, then, not only will I, The Decider, increase the number of troops but so also I will do it in a way that increases the rate of casualties. How's them donuts, eh!'

Like he does with his father, except now we are all his father to him.

unless he's planning on sending (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by cpinva on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 11:01:04 PM EST

an additional 350,000 troops in, this is truly a waste of scarce, allocable resources, not to mention lives. did i mention lives?

pres. bush's complete disconnect with reality is further illustrated by his "goals for the iraqi gov't", a gov't straining merely to survive at this point. their primary goal is making it from point A to point B, without being blown to bits. anything beyond that is gravy.

why do i keep being reminded of the movie "7 days in may"?

There is not ONE, not even ONE single combat- (none / 0) (#41)
by Bill Arnett on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:31:52 PM EST

ready brigade anywhere in the U.S. currently, so just where bush fancies he can produce another 25-30-thousand troops to send to Iraq is a total mystery. The Army says they have 9,000 troops that could be sent.

Think for a second of the enormity of the above statement: NOT ONE SINGLE COMBAT-READY BRIGADE IN AMERICA IN THE ENTIRE U.S. ARMY.

Oh, yeah, bush and his republican guard have really made us safer, huh?

If MEXICO or CANADA attacked us we would be entirely defenseless.

Good job, mr. boosh.


: Here's how boosh will do it ... (none / 0) (#44)
by Sailor on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 04:57:32 PM EST

... by recruiting dead guys, mental defectives and foreigners

The Handwriting Is On The Wall (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by john horse on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 11:26:25 PM EST

One thing that is obvious when looking at the Think Progress link is that support for this war is rapidly evaporating even among Republicans. The handwriting is on the wall. This war is not winnable. There are those of you who may believe that it is. However, all of the scenarios for a possible "victory" involve deploying a large number of troops in Iraq for a long period of time. I would argue that even if this strategy could work (and I don't believe that it could)this strategy is doomed because it depends on sustained public support and there is no public support for this war. Therefore, if victory isn't possible then what is the point of sacrificing anymore of our troops? Isn't 3,000 Americans killed enough?

Odierno (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 02:43:04 AM EST

January 08/06

BAGHDAD, IRAQ - In his first wide-ranging interview, the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq conceded Sunday that a "surge" of U.S. military force would not be enough to rescue Iraq, advocating economic and political changes as well.
Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said that a combination of jobs, provincial elections, anti-militia legislation and stronger Iraqi security forces could stop the nation's plunge toward all-out civil war.
Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, his predecessor, spelled out the same approach before his departure one month ago.

Odierno is a piece of work himself (none / 0) (#31)
by Dadler on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 11:41:39 AM EST

I could quote something infuriating about him from a number of sources, best of which is Thomas Ricks's FIASCO. But I found a WaPo transcript of Ricks taking online reader/viewer questions, and this one soldier's perspective really put the nut in a shell:

Quantico, Va.: First, I'd like to complement you on the large body of balanced material you've produced over the years.

I vividly remember a conversation I had with my Battalion Commander in Camp Lejeune about three years before the war started. I was a Marine Platoon Commander and we were conducting a formal professional discussion with all of the battalion officers on Dien Bien Phu. The subject turned to training for low intensity conflict (which includes counter-insurgency) and our ability to prepare for it adequately. The consensus was that we didn't have the time to prepare for the range of missions we might encounter and that we should focus on traditional high intensity combat. The theory was that we could always scale back but not up.

I think that, collectively, the entire U.S. military probably made the same decision. Thus, when the war evolved into an insurgency we started at a huge deficit. The result was that you ended up with a situation where every commander may have a completeley different idea of how to fight the war in Iraq. Your story of Major General Odierno is just one example of a failure to understand the nature of the conflict. Stories of very senior commanders being upbraided by LtGen Petaues (then the commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command), for instance, have made the rounds among junior officers. My question is this - do you really think that the services are making their best effort to adapt to the nature of the war considering the significant mental challenges that need to be overcome? For instance, we don't reward officers for serving as embedded trainers with Iraqi units. Many senior officers haven't even internalized the tenets of Manuever Warfare, the central warfighting theory of the Marine Corps, do you really think we can get all services to internalize the principles of counter-insurgency?


Great link Dadler. Thanks. (none / 0) (#32)
by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 12:06:10 PM EST

I'm slightly confused though - maybe because I'm working and reading this at the same time, and I'm concerned that I might be missing a point you are making here.

Is Odiernos being "one example of a failure to understand the nature of the conflict" a negative re him not supporting Bushs' "surge" plans, or the reason for him not backing Bush... or did you have something else in mind here?

I'm just happy to see him oppose Bush (even as mildly as he is)... Did I miss something in your characterization of him as "a piece of work himself"?


No point missed (none / 0) (#45)
by Dadler on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 05:11:43 PM EST

Just the irony of this six-foot five, chrome domed, tough guy General, now NOT spouting the tough guy rhetoric. And the fact that he, like so many, didn't even THINK about counter-insurgency training. Which is amazing. But Odierno's still up there, still has power, which is also kind of amazing. But, like you said, at least he seems to have come around somewhat.


: Ahhhh... (none / 0) (#46)
by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 05:13:42 PM EST

Got it. Thx...

Narius (none / 0) (#14)
by Che's Lounge on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:21:47 PM EST

Reversing Bush's tax cuts, 50% of which went to those making over 500K/yr, won't hurt you a bit. I will gladly give back the combined $600 I got for those cuts to get back the hundreds of millions saved by that top 2% of the population. You may screech TAX HIKE! So what? Do you support the troops or not? Maybe you make over 500K.

We can redeploy.

apples to oranges (none / 0) (#43)
by Sailor on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 04:55:39 PM EST

tax rates for middle-income earners rose in 2004, the most recent year for which data were available, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office study found.
[...]
the effective individual tax rates for the top 1 percent of U.S. families, earning an average $1.25 million a year, dropped to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000

: sailor... and yes we have no bananas (none / 0) (#47)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 11:31:06 PM EST

or at least you don't mention them.
I have no idea as to how effective tax rates relate to Bush's plan to increase troop numbers in Iraq, but since you brought the subject up, we might as well get all the facts out.
This is what you quoted:

At the same time, tax rates for middle-income earners rose in 2004
This is what followed in the same article.

Middle-income families earning an average $56,200 in 2004 saw their average effective tax rate rise slightly to 2.9 percent in 2004 from 2003, but fall from 5 percent in 2000, translating to an average $1,180 tax cut.
So while you are correct for a brief moment in time, the facts show that a substantial decrease was enjoyed from taxes set by the Democratic Clinton administration. That you ignored this raises questions in my mind, but I won't go there.
I haven't had a chance to see the study referenced, but I am confused over its statement that the "effective" tax rate rate rose slightly. Now effective tax rate is:

Actual income tax paid divided by net taxable income before taxes, expressed as a percentage.

Since there were no increases in actual tax rates, and since I know of no loss of deductions that would increase net income, it is an enigma shrouded in a mystery, to paraphrase Churchill.
I would think that the answer lies in a lower inflation rate causing the increase in tax tables to be lower than in previous years.
And while I am as willing to soak the rich as anyone, your article concluded with the following:

While tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families generally paid a bigger share of total taxes, The New York Times reported.

What a waste (none / 0) (#15)
by Edger on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:25:05 PM EST

we will spend a lot of time talking about it because it's important to do so," the White House press secretary, Tony Snow, said.

Translation: We have a huge PR Problem here. Cut us some slack.

Why not just bring the troops home and send some of the saved money to Iraq to help them get their new government off the ground?

Makes too much sense?

Because if they fail, then Bush will have failed.

How is that different from the past six years? Or from his entire life?

: The more they talk, the less people believe them. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Bill Arnett on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 12:37:13 PM EST

Is your last name Walton or Hilton? (none / 0) (#16)
by scarshapedstar on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:26:38 PM EST

Just curious.

Walter (none / 0) (#17)
by Che's Lounge on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 07:27:20 PM EST

Oliver North has nothing honest to contribute to the discussion of the war. He's a lying traitor who, as is our policy, peddled weapons to whomever it was in his best interest to sell them to (see Saddam Hussein), even our "enemies". He is a disgrace to the United States.

Interesting (none / 0) (#20)
by aw on Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 09:54:56 PM EST

OLIVER NORTH CONTRADICTS JOE LIEBERMAN'S ACCOUNT OF COMMANDERS' OPINIONS OF "SURGE."


Astonishing yes (none / 0) (#24)
by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 02:30:06 AM EST

but loserman has the same brain disease bush and the peasants have, I think.


: My thoughts exactly (none / 0) (#26)
by aw on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 08:12:49 AM EST

So..... (none / 0) (#28)
by peacrevol on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 10:08:38 AM EST

Now we have a war-torn ravaged Iraq that they can't control, we can't control, and the insurgents can't control. If we pull out of there now, we may have to go back some time in the future when it's even worse. It seems to me that the best option is to start rolling back troops and tell the Iraqi govt to nut up and take control of their country. But, then again, we put them in that situation, so maybe that's not completely fair either. Sort of a catch 22. Damned if you do, damned if you dont. Has anybody heard anything from Dr. Gates since his trip to Iraq? The last I heard was that he talked to some of the grunts and military leaders on the ground and they think we need more troops.

Perhaps what we need is more good intel on the ground so we can find out where the insurgents are and their patterns of movement. Of course that will be increasingly hard to get as Iraqi support for the US fades. That poor pooch...been getting screwed for several years now.

From what I understand, Gates got the... (none / 0) (#34)
by Bill Arnett on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 12:51:28 PM EST

...positive input from a group of fifteen troops recently graduated from boot camp, troops of the E1, E2, E3, pay grades, hardly a bastion of sophisticated war-planning/gaming expertise.

It just goes to show that if you look hard enough you can find SOMEONE to agree with ANYTHING.

Also, the time for good intel passed long ago, as genuine intel was forced to give way to the 'cherry-picked intel" used to justify the war. Same thing's happening now with Iran.

But you are right, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't, but, again, looking back at "Nam, none of the dire predictions of all of Asia being taken over by communist came true and, despite all the damage we inflicted there, Vietnam is now a member of the international community, trading and dealing with everyone they can.

I believe that much the same would happen in Iraq, if we Americans would get out of their way and let them work on their problems their way.

But bush will NEVER leave until we control the oil.


You might be right (none / 0) (#36)
by peacrevol on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 01:57:49 PM EST

It seems to me that if you're caught in a catch 22, and all of your options are exhausted and you see absolutely no way to get it back, perhaps we should get out and let them try to take over their country. That way we'll save more lives. But it seems a little harsh to overthrow a country's govt and throw them into chaos and then leave them to clean up in the aftermath. Beats me...

In '04 our intel was still pretty good, but after that, I have no idea what's happened. With the capabilities of US special forces such as RECON and S.E.A.L.S., we can gain quite a bit of intel w/o a whole lot of support from Iraqi friendlies, but it's often too little too late. It takes time to 'get the ball rolling' so to speak in the intel community, but it is key to success in a war of secrecy and insurgency like we have in Iraq. We've got to get those special forces rolling if we stay. I suspect that somebody among the higher-ups has already figured that, since they no longer require 4 yrs of combat experience before being eligible to apply for RECON training.


: Right again, it would be harsh to abandon... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Bill Arnett on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:38:27 PM EST

...the Iraqi's to their fate, but if we can't win anyway that may be what we have to do.
Anything, IMO, is better than Americans fighting and dying for oil we could have PURCHASED much, much, more cheaply.

amazing iraq videos of us troops (none / 0) (#29)
by MinorRipper on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 10:48:33 AM EST

Not sure if everyone has seen these videos of the US military in Iraq or not, but they are pretty amazing: Hopefully our 'surge' will not include too many of these types...
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/winning-hearts-and-minds-part-three.html

Understanding history (none / 0) (#30)
by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 11:12:54 AM EST

"Those who understand history are condemned to watch other idiots repeat it."
--Peter Lamborn Wilson

More smoke and mirrors (none / 0) (#35)
by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 01:35:02 PM EST

Michael Klare has a good article in The Nation analyzing and contextualizing the likely reasons and motivations behind Bush's replacing Abizaid with Admiral Fallon, which btw, was NOT a promotion for Fallon, and was proably done with rather ominous intentions:

First, this is a lateral move for the admiral, not a promotion: As head of Pacom, Fallon commanded a larger force than he will oversee at Centcom, and one over which he will exercise less direct control since all combat operations in Iraq will be under the supervision of Gen. Dave Petraeus, the recently announced replacement for Gen. George Casey as commander of all US and allied forces. Second, and more surprising, Fallon is a Navy man, with experience in carrier operations, while most of Centcom's day-to-day work is on the ground, in the struggle against insurgents and warlords in Iraq and Afghanistan.
...
Fallon served as vice chief of naval operations before becoming the head of Pacom in 2005. All this means that he is primed to oversee an air, missile and naval attack on Iran, should the President give the green light for such an assault--and the fact that Fallon has been moved from Pacom to Centcom means that such a move is very much on Bush's mind.
The recent replacement of General Abizaid by Admiral Fallon, along with other recent moves announced by the Defense Secretary, should give deep pause to anyone concerned about the prospect of escalation in the Iraq War. Contrary to the advice given by the Iraq Study Group, Bush appears to be planning for a wider war--with much higher risk of catastrophic failure--not a gradual and dignified withdrawal from the region.

More war... (none / 0) (#38)
by desertswine on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:02:00 PM EST

Bush appears to be planning for a wider war--with much higher risk of catastrophic failure--

That sounds ominous... and looks likely.

Also, 20-30,000 troops is not enough to win; and not enough to lose. But it is enough to get him through his term of office.


how many troops (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by soccerdad on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:26:06 PM EST

does it take to defend the green zone and the new embassy?


Well, boosh DOES now have the ethiopian... (none / 0) (#48)
by Bill Arnett on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:31:08 PM EST

...army based in Somalia, just a slingshot away from Iraq across the Red Sea, AND a whole bunch of naval ships out there, so it won't be long before he declares war on somebody else.

Maybe he just wants several "Green Zones" in convenient locations, you know, like Starbucks.


: Distracting Congress, and the public (none / 0) (#49)
by Edger on Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 02:40:29 PM EST

Distracting Congress from the Real War Plan
Paul Craig Roberts
The only purpose of the surge is to distract Congress while plans are implemented to widen the war.
...
Israel has two years remaining to use its American resources to achieve its aims in the Middle East. How influential will Israel and the neoconservatives be with the next president in the wake of a US defeat in Iraq and Israeli defeat in Lebanon?
...
This goal requires the war to be widened by whatever deceit and treachery necessary to bring the American public along.

Yes... (none / 0) (#39)
by Edger on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 03:07:34 PM EST

20-30,000 troops is ... enough to get him through his term of office

I wish this was funny... but even though it's a cartoon, it's not a joke.
