so "surge" = returning troop levels to what they were...

[salin]

in a couple of articles this am there are mentions that the level this "surge" would increase to is actually returning to a previous level.

Of particular note in this Reuters piece is here:
Adding 17,500 troops in Baghdad and 4,000 in restive Sunni Anbar province to the west over the next four months would take the U.S. force in Iraq back close to 150,000 -- the level it was at four months ago, during a previous, unsuccessful, push to quash violence in Baghdad.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-01-11T100848Z_01_MAC638878_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ.xml

This flies in the face of the words the president laid out last night - in attempting to describe how this time the sweeps in Baghdad would be different - he said that before there were only enough troops to sweep through - and this time with the increase in troops - there would be enough to stay in the area to make sure insurgents (or terrarists to bush) don't come back. AND throughout the speech he spoke as if the entire increase would immediately be available.

Critics need to point these things out. This isn't "new"; this isn't "different"; this is returning to previous levels and trying a second time to do what has already been tried - and has failed. There is that old statement about the definition of insanity... doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

I just thought that the point made in the Reuters article was worth pulling out and talking about (and sending a long to critics with a voice in the media so that the only place it is stated isn't buried in an article as background.)

[w4rma]

1. Very good point. (nt)

[salin]

2. these days - no lie, nor distortion, should be overlooked.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Does anyone outside the pentagon know?

I could swear that most of last year we were at somewhere between 157,000 andn 159,000.

[fasttense]

4. The crazy king george said in his speech last night

that he was returning troop levels to what they were. But he didn't seem to make the connection that it didn't help then, why is it going to help now.

Oh, he gave a bunch of BS about how NOW they were going to do things differently. But seriously, there seems to be no connection in the ignorant neocon's mind, the ones who pull the king's strings, that their neocon wet dream that is the Iraq economy (with 60% unemployment) is useless and destructive. The awful neocon economy in Iraq is what is fueling this civil war. Of course our troops being there to represent the American neocon in person and serve as targets is not helping either.

[salin]

5. I missed that mention in the speech

*though I admit that my mind wandered from time to time - distracted by paying more attention to his lack of change of expression - for twenty moments while he spoke - odd flat/forced affect.*

Thanks for pointing it out - I hope others (when refuting) do it as well - because it heightens the disconnect that you point out.

[donheld]

6. 17,500 is just replacing the ones Bush wounded or killed.

How many more will we let him do this to?