NYT: Options Weighed for Surge in G.I.'s to Stabilize Iraq: Troop increase option gaining ground

[DeepModem Mom]

Options Weighed for Surge in G.I.'s to Stabilize Iraq
By DAVID E. SANGER and MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: December 16, 2006

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 — Military planners and White House budget analysts have been asked to provide President Bush with options for increasing American forces in Iraq by 20,000 or more. The request indicates that the option of a major “surge” in troop strength is gaining ground as part of a White House strategy review, senior administration officials said Friday.

Discussion of increasing the number of American troops, at least temporarily, has coursed through Washington for two months, as a possible way to reverse the deteriorating security situation in Baghdad. But the decision to ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to specify where the additional forces could be found among overstretched Army, Marine and National Guard units, and to seek a cost estimate from the White House Office of Management and Budget, signifies a turn in the debate.

Officials said that the options being considered included the deployment of upwards of 50,000 additional troops, but that the political, training and recruiting obstacles to an increase larger than 20,000 to 30,000 troops would be prohibitive.

At present, only about 17,000 American soldiers are actively involved in the effort to secure Baghdad, so even the low end of the proposals being considered by military and budget officials could more than double the size of that force. If adopted, such an increase would be a major departure from the current strategy advocated by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., which has stressed stepping up the training of Iraqi forces and handing off to them as soon as possible.

The details of the plan under study by the White House are not known, but in most scenarios the troop increase would be accomplished in large part by accelerating some scheduled deployments while delaying the departure of units in Iraq....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/world/middleeast/16military.html?hp&ex=1166331600&en=2b8fdfbbaaedc925&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Frack when are Jenna and barbara suiting up?

Sorry, at this point if they are gonna send troops that way, let them send their kids too

[ninkasi]

2. This just provides more targets

so that we will be saddened by more casualties. We need to bring the troops home now.

[Recursion]

4. Surging is a bad idea, but a better idea than sitting there

Having sufficient troop levels is a bad idea, but every idea about Iraq is a bad idea (yes, even getting the hell out now). This one at least has the virtue of addressing the factual threats and missions facing the military in Iraq, as opposed to simply keeping 3 vastly outnumbered and outgunned divisions there as targets. As we said in the Corps, a bad plan today is better than a good plan tomorrow. And both are better than the status quo of no plan at all.

[sandnsea]

9. Nope, this is a worse plan

More troops means more violence means more enemy means more dead troops. This is a case of an awful plan tomorrow being worse than a bad plan today. We do have a good plan, disengagement and regionl withdrawal in conjunction with diplomacy, we just don't have anybody in a position of authority who can implement it.

[rodeodance]

11. even the Surge (to stablelize) is only temporary solution

[saigon68]

13. I'm sure the IED builders are awaiting this CLUSTER FUCK IDEA with glee

Two War Criminals

[SKKY]

3. So, does this mean we're BACK with the Powell Doctrine?

[anotherdrew]

5. let's all go over! at 300 million americans, that should be 10-12 of us per Iraqi or so...

that should be enough to keep them all in line

[gulfcoastliberal]

6. Where will the "American forces"come from?

More abuse of the guard? The reserves? I don't understand how we havemore troops to feed into the meatgrinder?

[PADemD]

19. A draft

[ClintonTyree]

7. Typical Bush reaction....

throw more money and manpower into the middle of Iraq's civil war. We're playing a game of 'insurgent whack-a-mole' over there. OK, so we send 30,000 more troops and spend another $2 billion (to start) to get Baghdad stabilized. Judging from past experience, the insurgents will then just pop up some where else where hordes of soldiers AREN'T and we're right back where we were before, only NOW we have 30,000 more targets there and are spending many billions more a year. And no one sees the folly of this?

This might have been a good way to START Bush's war, with adequate manpower on the ground (like the Generals wanted), but it's not a great way to play catch-up in a war we're LOSING. Don't forget, as Bush finally alters his "strategery" in Iraq, the Iraqis and other associated foes are altering theirs as well. They're not going to stand idly by while the US adjusts it's battle plan, they're making adjustments of their own. Thus, the quagmire will continue indefinitely until a new administration is ushered in to clean up Bush's mess. We can "cut and run" now or we can "cut and run" later. Those are the only REAL choices but Bush just can't see past his ego to recognize that. We've already lost whatever chance there ever was for stabilizing Iraq.

Troop escalations and pouring mountains of money into Viet Nam really helped, didn't it? :eyes: Same thing, different quagmire. Those not smart enough to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Bush, in a nutshell.

[sandnsea]

8. Too late for that

Increased forces might have been useful in the very beginning, I doubt it considering the rest of the failures, but it MIGHT have helped. Not useful now, will just increase the violence.

At the expense of so many dead, the 'good' news is that it will destroy McCain's chance at the Presidency if they do this.

[LynnTheDem]

10. Fatal mistake.

And after the fatal mistake, we'll hear "who could have known?!"

[legin]

12. By my not very accurate calculations

Using the 20 / 1000 figure for counter-insurgency operations:

Baghdad population = 6 milliom

security forces needed = 120,000

At the present level of 17,000 they are miles short.

the intended doubling still leaves them are well short.

(This leaves out of the calculation Iraqi security forces)

[cap]

14. we did this in Vietnam

yesterday's escalation is today's surge.

[dbt]

15. If I may offer a gentle correction, your title should read:

We did this in the FIRST Viet Nam.

:freak:
dbt
Remember 1968

[chknltl]

16. And what do the good citizens of Iraq think?

...Or should that even matter. Is this the plan America had in mind when they voted last November?
Dennis Kuccinich is right. Bring our boys home in 90 days! In the meanwhile, I think the winter is a great time to get started on some much needed spring cleaning.

[LizW]

17. Iraq?

Hell, it doesn't even matter what the citizens of the United States think. We just voted the Republican warmongers out of power in Congress and support for escalation is practically non-existent among regular people.

And what does it matter? We live in a dictatorship.

[gratuitous]

18. Only among the serious thinkers in Washington

We just had an election that was a massive repudiation of this war, a political sea change that shocked practically everyone, Republican and Democrat alike. And now, six weeks later, before the new Congress is even sworn in, the official, serious thinker set in Washington concludes that the reason for public disaffection for the war in Iraq can be solved through escalation.

Absolutely fookin' brilliant. It takes an uncommon mind to think of something like this.