Surge
I can understand why military leaders might question the idea of a "surge" of troops into Baghdad (and by a "surge," we are talking about 40,000 more troops at the most--some of them newbies, and some returning for their second or even third tour-of-duty). As former Secretary of State and Joint Chiefs of Staff member, Colin Powell, noted on CBS's Face The Nation, if there is no specific strategy in place, then throwing more troops at the problem of violence in Baghdad will be a collosal waste of lives and time (btw, he was misparaphrased by Reuters, who stated that he supported a "troop surge": I watched the program, and this definitely was not what he said). Unfortunately, by conservative estimates, it would take around 500,000 troops to "pacify" Baghdad and the surrounding small towns. Baghdad is a huge city, and if you employ only 40,000 troops added to the 50,000 that are in and around Baghdad, you are again in the position of possibly playing "whack a mole." Furthermore you are in danger of doing the following: 1) alienating Iraqis by increasing the "footprint" of American forces 2) using this "surge" as an excuse not to engage in meaningful negotiations with factions inside and outside of Iraq 3) putting more soliders', and civilians', lives at risk since as the "footprint" grows larger, so does the "target" for insurgents.
If you are going to put down internecine conflicts, which now involve different factions of Sadr's militias, the police, the Iraqi army, the various ministries' militias, Iraqi Sunni insurgents, both Islamists and secular, foreign fighters and criminal gangs, you are going to need more than 100,000 American soliders and a vague plan to impose the peace. You are going to need divine intervention.
I'm not clear that anyone in the administration knows exactly what they are up against. This reminds me so much of Northern Ireland and the insertion of the British Army, but about 100 times deadlier and with about 10 times more players.
Someone please, please wake-up and smell the cordite.
I can understand why military leaders might question the idea of a "surge" of troops into Baghdad (and by a "surge," we are talking about 40,000 more troops at the most--some of them newbies, and some returning for their second or even third tour-of-duty). As former Secretary of State and Joint Chiefs of Staff member, Colin Powell, noted on CBS's Face The Nation, if there is no specific strategy in place, then throwing more troops at the problem of violence in Baghdad will be a collosal waste of lives and time (btw, he was misparaphrased by Reuters, who stated that he supported a "troop surge": I watched the program, and this definitely was not what he said). Unfortunately, by conservative estimates, it would take around 500,000 troops to "pacify" Baghdad and the surrounding small towns. Baghdad is a huge city, and if you employ only 40,000 troops added to the 50,000 that are in and around Baghdad, you are again in the position of possibly playing "whack a mole." Furthermore you are in danger of doing the following: 1) alienating Iraqis by increasing the "footprint" of American forces 2) using this "surge" as an excuse not to engage in meaningful negotiations with factions inside and outside of Iraq 3) putting more soliders', and civilians', lives at risk since as the "footprint" grows larger, so does the "target" for insurgents.
If you are going to put down internecine conflicts, which now involve different factions of Sadr's militias, the police, the Iraqi army, the various ministries' militias, Iraqi Sunni insurgents, both Islamists and secular, foreign fighters and criminal gangs, you are going to need more than 100,000 American soliders and a vague plan to impose the peace. You are going to need divine intervention.
I'm not clear that anyone in the administration knows exactly what they are up against. This reminds me so much of Northern Ireland and the insertion of the British Army, but about 100 times deadlier and with about 10 times more players.
Someone please, please wake-up and smell the cordite.
posted by mariestaad at 12:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home