You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Stalingrad on the Tigris? Read this and weep... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 12:24 AM
Original message
Stalingrad on the Tigris? Read this and weep...
Advertisements [?]
Stalingrad on the Tigris?

Below you will find a Power Point (what else?) presentation on the recent AEI analytic meeting run by one of the Kagans. The cast of contributers at the end reads very much like one of the great neocon "papers" done up before their return to power under Bush 41'. I have in mind the "Clean Break" paper which contained so much of "future history. The military men listed among the supposed authors are a mystery to me. I know who some of them are but I question how much they really understood what was going to be said in their names.

The paper urges a "surge" of many thousands more US troops into Baghdad beginning in March, 2007 for one more grand roll of the iron dice. The concept seems to be based on the notion that Shia militias exist because of Sunni violence against them rather than as expressions of a Shia drive to political dominance in Iraq. Based on that belief the authors seem to believe that if the additional US and Iraqi forces to be employed in the Capital area defeat (destroy?) the Sunni insurgent groups, then the Shia militia armies will "wither away" from a lack of need. I do not think that belief is justified.

The authors assert that contrary to General Schoomaker's appraisal below in"State of the Army," such a surge will not "break the Army."

<snip>

The carnage implicit in this concept would be appalling. The authors have much to say about the consequences of defeat in Iraq, but, I wonder if they have contemplated what it would be like to fail in their climactic battle and still be required by '43 to stay in Iraq. pl


You really ought to read this post in its entirety, and read the comments as well. I'm unfortunately not sure how many DUers are interested in paying close and serious attention to the Iraq agression, but -- for myself -- I can't think of anything that is more important to the future of our own country -- not to mention the future of the entire Middle East, our petroleum economy, and the balance of power all over the globe.

But maybe that's just me...

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC