It's not Surge, it's Escalation

[RedEarth]

Surging into the Abyss

By Vali Nasr ... Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Senior Fellow at the Dubai Initiative at the Kennedy School of Government of Harvard University

New troops will be in Iraq not to police the streets and hold the line against the creeping violence, but to expand the war by taking on the Shia militias. This is an escalation strategy. Will it work; maybe, maybe not. But it runs the risk that it may very well provoke a Shia insurgency—something Iraq has not so far witnessed. Thus far the U.S. has faced a Sunni insurgency (which by most estimates continues to account for 80% of U.S. casualties), and sectarian violence in which Shias and Sunnis are killing each other. Shia militias are violent, destructive and radical, but Shia militias are a very different problem from the Sunni insurgency. Shia militias, unlike te insurgency, are not targeting American troops. But it looks like the administration is set to change that. Over the past year Washington and its Baghdad embassy have alienated the Shia and undermined the authority of the more moderate Ayatollah Sistani. Anti-Americanism has grown in Shia ranks as they accuse U.S. of favoring Sunnis by focusing on Shia militias rather than Sunni insurgency. By going to war with the increasingly popular Sadr Washington runs the danger of losing the Shia altogether.

Wrong-headed military and political steps provoked the Sunni insurgency in 2003-04, and then more mistakes helped fuel sectarian violence in 2005-06. Another set of mistakes can turn 2007 into the year that U.S. provoked a Shia insurgency. That may prove to be the mother of all mistakes. Hell in Iraq will come when the Shia south—accounting for 60% of the country’s population, largest urban areas, oil, supply lines to Kuwait, and only gateway to the Persian Gulf—rises up against the U.S. Then we either have to get out of Iraq altogether and very quickly, or we will have to commit to many more troop surges to deal with the problems created by the first one.

Finally, in the grander scheme of things, it is not Iraq that needs a troop surge, but Afghanistan. As Barnett Rubin points out in his excellent essay in the latest issue of the Foreign Affairs the country where the 9/11 plot was hatched and the international terror threat started may well collapse into chaos and violence, and produce another terrorist threat if the U.S. does not commit more troops and resources to shore up its government and economy, and contain the Taliban. Surging in the wrong country at this time will make the U.S. more vulnerable in the coming years. Ignoring Afghanistan will take that country back to where it was before 9/11 while the cycle of surges and insurgencies in Iraq will further limit our ability to respond to Afghanistan. What should Washington do: Surge in Afghanistan if you surge anywhere, and as for Iraq, focus first on a political roadmap.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/americaabroad/2006/dec/21/surging_into_the_abyss

Biography
Vali Nasr is Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Senior Fellow at the Dubai Initiative at the Kennedy School of Government of Harvard University. He is a specialist on political Islam and Middle East and South Asia Politics. He is the author of several books and articles, most recently, The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam will Shape the Future (2006), co-author (with Ali Gheissari) of Democracy in Iran: History and the Quest for Liberty, The Islamic Leviathan: Islam and State Power (2000). He is Carnegie Scholar for 2006.

[Cary]

1. Bush has two more years.

He's pretty damn near the bottom. What does he have to lose?

It's not like he really cares about this country.

[Jacobin]

2. Important. Naming the thing properly is important

'surge' sounds kind of benign and temporary, while 'escalation' which is what it is, is more accurate and doesn't imply that its temporary, which of course, it would not be

Thanks

[damntexdem]

3. Yeah, it's like when LBJ "surged" U.S. involvement in Vietnam ...

after having the Gulf of Tonkin Incident cooked up.

[Higans]

17. like the "recent surge in violence" so often sighted by the M$M...

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

34. To me, "surge" is just a fast escalation

Surge or escalation, there will be no fixed time for "unsurging" or de-escalating back to current levels. It's just a build-up of forces.

And still no clear view of what "victory" is, just a hope that we attain it.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. We have to refuse to use their framing.

They delight in deliberate obfuscation and confusion. Their proposal to get us out of Iraq is to get us further in: to escalate the war. We here need to reject the use of the term 'surge' for 'escalation' and instead call their proposal what it is.

They are also deliberately conflating the issue of overall troop strength with their desire to escalate the Iraq war yet again in another 'last chance' to salvage their mission. Some here on DU have fallen for the confusion between overall troop levels and escalating the war in Iraq. They are using that issue to further confuse what they are up to. The armed forces still have not managed to recruit enough troops to meet current authorization levels, how they would manage to permanently staff an addition 20-40,000 troops is a question unasked by our ever attentive compliant media.

That of course begs the question of why exactly the united states needs to have such a large military force deployed all over the planet, another question nobody seems to be asking.

[truth2power]

12. Yes, it's about the framing, and here's an example...

On "Talk of the Nation" on NPR this afternoon, Neil Conan had a guest who was putting a positive spin on the "surge" idea. When a caller said it should be called what it is: an escalation, Conan rather rudely, I thought, elbowed the caller aside and allowed the guest to expound at length, thus sending the escalation idea down the memory hole as far as listeners were concerned.

Yep! Can't let the 'muriken public start thinking about what "surge" really means.

[AdHocSolver]

21. Framing, "shmaming"; Bush goals in Iraq and Afghanistan are being achieved.

They are Big Oil's goals, and Bush is achieving them successfully. To understand what is going on, one must look at WHAT they DO, NOT WHAT they SAY. The invasion of Afghanistan was to secure a contract from a U.S.-installed puppet government to build a natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan. Getting Osama bin Laden was merely a pretext to get Congress to fund the project. Once the contract was achieved, Bush "lost interest" in bin Laden and took an interest in Iraq. The goal in Iraq was to get rid of Saddam Hussein who was working to get around the U.S.-inspired oil embargo by making deals with third party oil companies which would compete with OPEC. This would reduce OPEC's ability to set oil prices by manipulating production quotas and would hurt Big Oil's profits.

Bush's and Big Oil's goal in Iraq is to control Iraq's oil to LIMIT oil production so as to create an artificial shortage and thereby maintain high prices and high profit margins. They can do this by maintaining bases to protect the oil fields, even if the rest of Iraq continues its civil war for years. There is no need to win a war in Iraq. There was no need to win the war in Afghanistan. The fact that the warlords are back in control, the opium production is flourishing, the Taliban are making a big comeback is of no consequence to Bush because the pipeline is a done deal and being protected at taxpayers' expense by U.S. troops.

What can be done about Iraq? The dilemma for Congress has been how to cut funding for the war without being accused of hurting our troops. Actually, there is a solution. Congress should cancel all contracts for Halliburton and the other war-profiteering companies and get them out of Iraq. To continue to profit from the war, they have to see to it that the war continues. There is a conflict of interest there that no one seems to want to acknowledge.

Congress better do SOMETHING as I have suggested and SOON because the next Bush action will be to start a war with Iran. It isn't necessary to win a war with Iran. As in Iraq, it is only necessary to gain control of Iran's oil to limit production and ensure an artificial scarcity to maintain high oil prices. Another action that Congress should take is to push for alternative energy sources other than oil (and other than coal) to reduce our need for fossil fuels. However, Congress should not do this, as was done in the 1980's, by giving big money to the oil companies to "research" alternative fuels.

One last point. Back in the 1980's, the U.S. essentially armed both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. This put a damper on oil production back then. Iraq no longer "exists". However, imagine what a war between the Shias and the Sunnis would do for oil production in the Middle East!

[NewJeffCT]

26. The media is the one that embraces their framing

For 4 years now, we have heard about "contractors" in Iraq, or "civilian contractors" because most Americans think a contractor is the guy who puts a new roof on your house, or remodels your kitchen. The real term that should have been used from the start is "mercenary," but that has a really negative implication (most think of mercenaries as the disposable minions of the bad guys that can't shoot straight that Arnold Schwarzenegger fights in his movies, or the army-of-thugs-for-hire that are in the employ of a South American drug lord)

Has anybody really used the term "mercenary" outside of a few bloggers?

And, look at DailyKos today about what is starting to become conventional wisdom - one specialist in Iraq is quoted as supporting more troops, and his quote makes every fracking paper in the country. Never mind that all of his commanders say "no" as do Colin Powell and all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/21/212345/69

[spanone]

5. I agree 110%. Call it what the hell it is. Surge sounds 'sexy'. Yea, so does Death.

[Dr.Phool]

6. I was just getting ready to post this.

Glad you beat me to it.

Repeat after me. ESCALATION! ESCALATION! ESCALATION!

The chimp can surge on....never mind.

[Bake]

7. But, "escalation" sounds so ... so ... PRE-9/11

Don't you know? Everything changed after 9/11, right? We can't be using a word that sounds like Vietnam (nevermind that Iraqification is just Vietnamization warmed over).

:sarcasm:

Some fool sat around for how long to come up with that marketing slogan for this escalation "product"?????

Bake

[Tuesday_Morning]

8. surge = escalation

[ProudDad]

9. The Big Fool said to "push on!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnrHWhmMiz8

Waist Deep In The Big Muddy

by Pete Seeger 1963, planned for the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour in 1967 but CBS objected to the blacklisted Seeger making obvious references to the"big fool" in the White House, finally sung by Seeger on the Comedy Hour in 1968 as the finale in a medley of anti-war songs

It was back in nineteen forty-two,
I was a member of a good platoon.
We were on maneuvers in-a Loozianna,
One night by the light of the moon.
The captain told us to ford a river,
That's how it all begun.
We were -- knee deep in the Big Muddy,
But the big fool said to push on.

The Sergeant said, "Sir, are you sure,
This is the best way back to the base?"
"Sergeant, go on! I forded this river
'Bout a mile above this place.
It'll be a little soggy but just keep slogging.
We'll soon be on dry ground."
We were -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.

The Sergeant said, "Sir, with all this equipment
No man will be able to swim."
"Sergeant, don't be a Nervous Nellie,"
The Captain said to him.
"All we need is a little determination;
Men, follow me, I'll lead on."
We were -- neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.

All at once, the moon clouded over,
We heard a gurgling cry.
A few seconds later, the captain's helmet
Was all that floated by.
The Sergeant said, "Turn around men!
I'm in charge from now on."
And we just made it out of the Big Muddy
With the captain dead and gone.

We stripped and dived and found his body
Stuck in the old quicksand.
I guess he didn't know that the water was deeper
Than the place he'd once before been.
Another stream had joined the Big Muddy
'Bout a half mile from where we'd gone.
We were lucky to escape from the Big Muddy
When the big fool said to push on.

Well, I'm not going to point any moral;
I'll leave that for yourself
Maybe you're still walking, you're still talking
You'd like to keep your health.
But every time I read the papers
That old feeling comes on;
We're -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.

Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a
Tall man'll be over his head, we're
Waist deep in the Big Muddy!
And the big fool says to push on!

Words and music by Pete Seeger (1967)
TRO (c) 1967 Melody Trails, Inc. New York, NY

[ninkasi]

10. This is an excellent article

My worry, of course, is that Bush will do whatever causes the worst possible outcome, and causes the whole region to explode into the beginning of WWIII. He refuses to listen to anybody but Cheney, Rove, and the voices in his diseased mind. He will bring our country to ruin, unless he is impeached.

I've read the opinions regarding impeachment, both pros and cons, but at this point, we don't have the luxury of worrying about what the political implications would be for either party, or any individual member of Congress. Now, it's necessary to save the Constitution, and our country, to get Bush and Cheney out of office.

[ProudDad]

11. Yep

There's nothing in the Constitution against a double-impeachment.

Get 'em both at one time and save money!

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/045

[tblue37]

13. Bush screwed up in Afghanistan the first time by diverting resources to

Iraq. It looks as though he is going to do the same thing again.

[Rex]

14. Has no chance of working. Success rate = 0

35,000 or 300,000 won't matter. The numbers needed to 'pacify' a nation the size of California will need to be in the million range. And that is just NOT going to happen. So the only other alternative, the smart one that leads to happy faces - get the fuck out of Dodge.

Do it now.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

15. K&R

[illinoisprogressive]

16. It's About the Imperial Presidency

If you look at it from the lens of this you see why they went to war and why Bush clings to iraq when people are dying. It's all about him and the idea of an imperial presidency. The fast track to power and war times powers and he won't give those up until Jan. 2009. He will cling to Iraq because to pull out he sees it as weakening his powers. that he will not give up even if the whole middle east blows up. It's all about him.

[flyarm]

18. I BELIEVE IT IS ABOUT WHO "RUNS " BUSH....

THE OCTOPUS... this is about the NEW WORLD ORDER..bush couldn't stop himself if he wanted to without having a casket made for himself and god knows who else ..and he is scared..not of us..but of them..........

fly

[AdHocSolver]

31. Congratulations flyarm, you hit the nail on the head.

As I explained in a previous post, Bush's job is NOT to WIN the wars, but ONLY to START them. The point of the war in Iraq is to LIMIT oil production there (reduced supply equates to higher oil prices.) Unending war means long term profits for companies with long term contracts for logistics, like your friendly folks at Halliburton.

Conversely, winning the war means hostilities cease, Iraq oil starts flowing, supply increases, and then price and profits drop. No more hostilities means fewer no-bid contracts for Halliburton, et al, and their stock price drops back down to a more realistic value (as much as 75 percent decrease).

Bush's next "assignment" is to start a conflict with Iran. They have a lot of oil and are not playing fair with Big Oil. Note, Bush doesn't have to win any war, but only START it. I would guess that the "surge" in troop request is not to stabilize Iraq, but as a nucleus for an invasion of Iran.

What the new Congress needs to do is unfund Halliburton, et al, and get them out of the area. They also need to find a way to prevent Bush from using the extra troops to invade Iran.

[ewagner]

19. Yes. I agree and also this:

After listening (with a large measure of disbelief ) to the President's news conference yesterday, it was clear, absolutely, pathetically, crystal, heartbreakenly, disgustingly ...clear... that Bush is going to find some way, some how to defy the advice of his Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Abazaid (who resigned in disgust) and every other rational, sentient being on this planet (which excludes the 21% or so who still support Bush) and send more troops into the Civil War in Iraq.

He calls is the "Surge Option".

The idea is that we will send additional (not overwhelming, just additional) troops to Iraq to secure Baghdad itself and then...and then... What? Iraq will turn into a flowering Democracy? The Shiia, Sunni and Kurds will join hands and sing Kubahya? Maybe we'll kill a whole bunch of militia, declare victory and pull out?

Others have referred to this strategy with a gambling term: Double Down.

Double down is a way of saying "it's all or nothing".

It implies risk.

So get this straight:

The Surge Option is a huge risk.

Per Colin Powell, we don't have enough troops to make this work without extending tours of the folks who are all ready there AND shortening the rotation time of troops who have been rotated out. Generals have referred to this option as having the potential to BREAK the Army and Marines who are stretched thin as we speak. That alone is dangerous. Too dangerous.

If we commit our military to an "all or nothing" strategy in Iraq, we invite disaster in another way. We invite disaster because we leave ourselves vulnerable to any adventurism or mischief that any of our enemies may want to pursue elsewhere.....say Al Queda may want to start a small "insurrection" in the Phillipines or Indonesia, say Russia wanted to start a little trouble for us in the Balkans...say Iran wanted to "up the ante" in Southern Iraq...say the Taliban (remember them? they're baaaaaaaaccckk and getting stronger) wanted to make a major initiative in Afghanistan...or if you really want to give yourself a nightmare, think about Al Queda teaming up with the Taliban to overthrow Mussaraf in Pakistan and get control of nuclear tipped long range missiles...

Say any of those things happened. Would we have the troops to respond to it?

And here's a snarky little question, what allies would come to our aid?

Better yet what allies do we still have?

The "Surge Option" is stupid. We've squandered our military might on a poorly conceived and worse executed personal vendetta (let's not get into the Freudian aspect of Bus 43 vs Bush 41) or perhaps some misguided Neocon utopian wet-dream. Not only can we NOT implement it without risking the demise of our military but it's incredibly dangerous if we do....

[Binka]

23. This Should Be A Thread ewagner Most Excellent Analysis

The thing about gambling is that one shouldn't double down when they are holding a pair of twos. Bush has a shitty hand and the fucker should fold not DD. But the idiot chimp has an endless supply of chips (bodies) to throw on the table so why the fuck should he care. :mad:

[lvasconcellos]

20. The "Surge"

This concept was cooked up by Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute. Yes, one of the original PNAC neocons who still is clinging on to that ideology by his fingernails and finding a rabid follower in Bush/Cheney. He came out 2 weeks ago in the Weekly Standard saying 80,000 troops were needed; suddenly this week 20,000 would do the job. All it will do is create more and destruction, but then again those are the hallmarks of Bubble Boy's administration.

[newyawker99]

27. Hi lvasconcellos!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Telegram Sam]

22. Don't Worry, Our Backs are Covered

And here's a snarky little question, what allies would come to our aid?


Answer: The Coalition of the Willing
Rest assured that we have many allies currently in Iraq that would come to our rescue in a pinch including (but not limited to) such global powerhouses as: Mongolia (is Genghis Khan still around?), Kazakhstan (Borat to the rescue!!), Macedonia (those are the guys that grow the yummy nuts - right? *that's a joke* ), Albania, and Tonga (oops, they withdrew).

[newyawker99]

28. Hi Telegram Sam!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ray of light]

24. good pointS!

[NewJeffCT]

25. I saw that, and we should use it

After I saw somebody else call it an ecalation, I changed my in-process LTTE from increased troop levels or surge to escalation.

[NewJeffCT]

29. Bah, what does this guy know?

Do you think Bush, the Decider, is impressed by all those credentials? And, all this reality talk is just encouraging the terrorists. Remember, Bush says nobody knows more than he does about Iraq and the war on terror.

This guy, Colin Powell, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Abizaid are just a lot of cheese eating surrender monkeys... liberal elitists in their ivory towers, hugging trees, sipping lattes, wearing birkenstocks, etc.

[Amonester]

30. "by taking on the Shia militias"

I was told that's what Saddam used to do...

Now the new stupid king of Iraq (**) wants to do the same?

Is it just moi, or was removing the previous tyrant a waste of 'murkan blood & money? For what? (Since Saddam was doing the same thing without the American People "having" to "pay" for it?)

Or maybe the criminal chimp won't bury them in "mass-graves" like Saddam did?

Big deal... :puke:

[woodsgirl]

32. Here's the

good news. our lawmakers are hell bent on death and destruction. The grunts on the ground are talking mutiny, according to TBRnews, who has an occasional writer out of Iraq. Powers that be are worried but can't address the problem because it is so embarrassing/might grow with publicity.This kind of thinking helped to stop the vietnam war.Does anybody know what the mission for the Vietnam war was? Supposedly to stop communism. Makes sense. The troops know the war is for oil, since bushco in his ignorance has not stated a mission.

[Generic Brad]

33. We need a good surge protector

Hopefully that will happen in the form of the new Democratic Congress.

[IndianaGreen]

35. There are two ways to end this war

There are two ways to end this war:

1. The Democratic Congress shuts down the war by voting to cutoff all funding for the surge and passes a resolution in which only funds to bring the troops home can be spend, or

2. Bush gets his way and sends our troops to a "Stalingrad on the Tigris."

Either way, the war will be over!

[dunn]

36. Almost seems like Bush is daring Dems to impeach him. Could that be a Republican strategy to...

sidetrack Dems from the Progressive agenda?

[Marr]

37. It's amazing how our entire media mindlessly picks up the slogan, isn't it?

They just all start squawking about a "surge" as if that's just the regular way of describing an increase in troop numbers.

[Out_of_Iraq_ NOW]

38. Powerful Antiwar Holiday Video

Happy Christmas - War is Over if you want it (John Lennon)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDm6RNQ5e-0

[teryang]

39. Direct conflict with Shia militia hoped to provoke war with Iran

...it's more than escalation. They keep saying Iranian's are supporting the Shia militia and promoting violence in Iraq. If they were, we would have already been forced out. The Shia militia are not armed with Iranian small arms technology nor are they trained in Iranian unconventional tactics. If they were, we'd be gone already. The notion of provoking a direct confrontation with Muqtada, as insane as it is, is based on their piss poor performance in urban combat compared to the Sunnis. Murdering unarmed people in broad daylight and secretly between midnight and six in the morning has given them a dominant position along with their numbers, this is reflective of their demographic and political position only. Militarily they are ineffective.

A direct military conflict, from the neocon bushite perspective is meant to trigger the Iranian intervention into Shia militias and their affairs THAT HAS BEEN A US PROPAGANDA TALKING POINT BUT WHICH HAS NOT YET OCCURED, much to neocon chagrin. If the US starts such a direct confrontation now, they will have it both ways, the SHIA are not properly trained in insurrection/rebellion tactics and will suffer huge losses and Iranians will be portrayed as coming to their aid, when thus far they have not.