“Give The Surge A Chance”
Posted by
tgirsch
Hilzoy nails it:
People sometimes talk about “doing what it takes in Iraq”, or “giving the surge a chance”, as though such choices had no actual downside; as though letting George W. Bush have his way on Iraq policy was like letting your child pursue some wildly improbable but ultimately harmless dream. “Why not let him try?”, they say, as though he were a teenager hoping to become a movie star, or me trying to make the NBA. This is obviously crazy: nothing about Iraq is harmless. Our soldiers are dying in Iraq; our money is being spent there; our resources are being diverted away from places like Afghanistan, where they might have done a lot more good. And, to top it all off, we are doing damage to our Army that will take decades to undo, and that might prevent us from responding adequately the next time we face a real threat, rather than one that exists only in Bush and Cheney’s imaginations.
As they say, read the whole thing. Also be sure to read the Washington Monthly article she links.
Surrender! Surrender! It will all go away if we surrender. Terrorists will see that we mean them no harm, and they will become peaceful nice guys.
Comment 12/20/2007
You should surrender before you are abjectly defeated like in Vietnam. Tail between the legs and all that. The same will happen in Afghanistan. These people are stonger (and better) than you are.
Comment 12/20/2007
“You should surrender before you are abjectly defeated like in Vietnam. Tail between the legs and all that.”
That’s exactly what the liberals are wanting.
“The same will happen in Afghanistan. These people are stonger (and better) than you are.”
Yeah, those terrorists and fundamentalist muslims are great people.
Comment 12/20/2007
Fred, you complaining about fundamentalists makes you look like even more of an asshole than usual, which is pretty damned impressive.
Anyway, what makes you think “liberals” want defeat? Can you cite, you know, evidence? Heck, a internally consistent theory would be a good start.
Comment 12/21/2007
But, just like a scenario in which TG makes the NBA, it would make a great “feel-good story.”
And, just in time for the holidays… Marketing genius hard at work!
Oh, this just in. TG, Isiah Thomas is willing to offer a 2010 first round draft pick to LL to acquire your services, provided you are an overpaid swingman who plays no defense and is highly delusional about how good you are at shooting from the three-point territory…
Comment 12/21/2007
Morris:
Did you even read the goddamn article? Of course you didn’t, because if you had, you might have addressed its actual substance.
But let’s give you a second chance. How do you propose we continue the surge, while simultaneously dealing with the attrition problems the Army faces? How do you propose we stem the tide of quality officers who are declining to re-enlist, and instead leaving for the private sector? In the meantime, how do you propose we run a quality Army without such officers?
You’re a big “support the troops” guy, so I’m sure you have extremely well-thought-out positions on all of this. Because surely, “support the troops” means more to you than putting a yellow magnet on your car and refraining from criticism of the Commander-In-Chief’s handling of things…
Comment 12/21/2007
The surge isn’t working? That’s news to the military and even to some anti-war politicians.
Comment 12/21/2007
Who said the surge isn’t working? Not me, and not the linked article. It merely discusses the effects of the surge on our Army, and what this means for the future.
Please, read the content, and try to stay on point!
Comment 12/21/2007
“try to stay on point!”
Yes, Sir.
Comment 12/21/2007
Okay, there’s this car dealership with stagnant sales. Company execs come up with a plan to offer entertainment as a way to draw more people to the site with the idea that the more people, the more sales.
So they do this and when they check the figures six months later, they see that yes, in fact, more people have come to the showroom than during the preceding six months. However, sales remain flat.
“Hooray!” they cry. “More people! Our plan is working!”
No, it’s not. The idea was to generate sales, not visits.
The Iraq plan is not working. The idea of the escalation of the war - excuse me, “surge” (Or is it “enhanced intervention techniques?”) - was avowedly to provide an “opening” for political progress in Iraq, and that’s something that even the gang in the White House has been unable to bring itself to claim is happening.
Yes, there have been some military gains - which, I suppose was to be expected when you pour a bunch more soldiers into a relatively small area, i.e., Baghdad. But the purpose was to promote a political settlement. And there is zippo progress on that front.
No, the “surge” is not working.
Comment 12/24/2007
“Yes, there have been some military gains”
Without the military gains, there is no chance of stability. Would you rather there be no military gains and we surrender? (That was a rhetorical question. We know what the liberal answer is.)
Comment 12/24/2007
Morris:
You still have not addressed any of my questions about how you rectify the long-term problems that the Army faces.
Also, without political progress, the military gains mean very little. Would you rather continue a futile military effort indefinitely, at great cost in money and lives, for a government that doesn’t really want it, than to admit that the effort is futile and risk being accused of “surrender?” (That was a rhetorical question. We know what the conservative answer is.)
Comment 12/24/2007
“Would you rather continue a futile military effort indefinitely”
I don’t agree with your premise that the war is lost and therefore we need to surrender.
Comment 12/24/2007
And we don’t agree with your premise that American military action can make political progress in Iraq. Why is that so hard to understand? It has nothing to do with the ability of our military; it has to do with objectives that can’t be achieved by military means. All the military can do is kill people, and they’re very, very good at it. But killing people (by itself) does not establish democracy. If we aren’t going to give the troops the political and diplomatic support they need — and it’s clear that this administration isn’t going to do that — then why continue asking them to risk their lives? Why is it “surrender” to say that the purported objectives of our operation aren’t being achieved, and even if they were, they wouldn’t be worth the cost?
Comment 12/24/2007
“All the military can do is kill people,”
Not true.
Comment 12/25/2007
Without the military gains, there is no chance of stability.
Typically non-responsive. The “surge” was not about military gains, it was about political gains - of which there have been none. So in your mind making zero progress toward your avowed goal constitutes success? Truly a strange - but coming from you unsurprising - metric.
Another car image:
A car is struggling to get up an icy hill. Part way up, it gets stuck, going nowhere. The driver stomps down on the accelerator. The wheels spin wildly on the ice; the car slides sidewards and fishtails.
Driver: Ah! Now we’re getting somewhere!
Passenger: Uh, actually, no, we’re not, not if the idea is to get up the hill.
Driver: What, you just want to surrender?
Comment 12/25/2007
“Typically non-responsive. The “surge” was not about military gains,”
Here’s a response. The surge was about military gains that would provide security for a chance at political progress. You can argue all you want about whether it was a success, but that was the purpose.
Comment 12/26/2007
My last on this as I have no intention of continuing to argue with a wall.
that was the purpose
You would make a fine Bush administration official with your ability to simply redefine terms in whatever way is immediately useful. I expect you’ll take that as a compliment. It is not.
Political progress was the purpose of the “surge.” It’s what the process was intended to achieve. The military escalation was to be the means. The means have not achieved, or even achieved progress toward, the ends. That is not success.
You would have us agree with the owners of the auto dealership who say they have “succeeded” even though sales remain flat and the driver who proclaims we’re “getting somewhere” even though the skidding, sliding car is no further up the hill. You can, as you say, “argue all you want” about that. It does not make it true.
Comment 12/26/2007
“My last on this as I have no intention of continuing to argue with a wall.”
I guess this means you consider yourself to be superior and that only those who buy your arguments are worthy of your time. That is a massive ego you have there. (For some reason I suspect that you will have an urge to respond to the wall.)
Comment 12/26/2007
You know, Fred, you were at least faking listening when you returned as “Morris”. Could you go back to that? If it helps, you can make up another name and pretend to be a new person who “agrees” with Fred all the time. We’re okay with more of your duplicity as the cost of a modicum of civility.
Comment 12/28/2007
After reading the debate going between Morris and the rest, I think I understand what’s going on. Morris (or Fred, I suppose) is stating that the purpose of the surge was to create stability so that Iraq could begin progressing politically. Because the surge has brought about this stability, Morris sees the surge as being sucessful.
The others are saying that adding more troops in a small area (Baghdad) was EXPECTED to bring stability, but the goal was to get the political progress moving, which hasn’t happened. Therefore, the surge hasn only been sucessful with the stability part but the goal of political progress is no where near being met.
In my opinion, Bush is only capable of achieving easy goals. Add more military, get more stability. Easy. Achieve cohesion and estabilish a functional government and self-sustaining stability in Iraq — not so easy. And so far Bush has no idea how to make this happen.
Just like shock and awe and removing a rather weak dictator (Saddam)from power, Bush can only do the easy things, just like all of us can. It’s the hard things he sucks at. But it’s the the success of the hard things that will make a real difference.
Comment 1/2/2008
Here’s an analogy (or two).
We’re in a room, there’s a safe built into a wall, but it is out of our reach. I hold you up on my shoulders and you can reach it(you are very heavy). You don’t know the combination though, neither do I. I am getting tired, and you are just randomly guessing combinations, how much longer am I supposed to do this before I complain, or before you admit that we aren’t actually any closer to opening the safe than if we were both taking a nap on the floor, or if we hadn’t even seen the safe in the first place.
Why am I holding you up there? For exercise? The entire plan is only fruitful if the goals are achieved (and achievable). Just because I am successfully propping you on my shoulders, that doesn’t mean we are succeeding. It wouldn’t matter if you replaced me with (insert really strong guy here). The course toward political progress will only be as fruitful as the progress made - you can argue semantics all you want, but you might as well be asking if Eli Manning throwing 4 TDs in a Giants loss constitutes “a good game.”
It may not be (primarily) the fault of the military that not much political progress is being made, and it may not have been Eli’s fault that the Giants lost, but the Pats are 16-0 and Iraq is still a political quagmire.
Comment 1/2/2008