Good Heavens, There's Going to be a Second Surge
| Tue May. 22, 2007 2:23 PM PDT
Because this one is going so well, you know.
New reports say that we're to have a second surge. If current Pentagon plans are followed, there will be over 200,000 American soldiers in Iraq by the end of 2007, the largest troop presence we've had there to date.
This is completely stunning news. There will likely be tons of analysis of this across the web, but some initial thoughts:
(1) The White House and the Pentagon are officially completely unresponsive to the wills of the people and Congress. If you weren't already convinced.
(2) Michael Hirsh was 100 percent correct.
(3) This is a full renunciation of the Rumsfeldian way of making war. A lean fighting force can beat an opposing army but it can't secure the peace -- we should have had 200,000 troops or more at the beginning of the war. If we had, there's a small chance we'd be in a position to withdraw victoriously today.
(4) Will this make the Democrats reconsider dropping timelines for withdrawal from their latest Iraq funding bill?
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
The Democrats just dropped the timetable on the funding and gave Bush everything he wanted. The Democrats came into power with the understanding that they would cut funding and bring the troops home like they did in the Vietnam war. This just goes to show the power of AIPAC. In 2008, the people will throw out the Democrats for the double cross.
Let me say in the interest of full disclosure that I am an Army officer. I have been to Iraq twice. I am currently on track to leave the Army in a few weeks (although it is possible that a new "surge" will overturn that plan.)
I can't say for certain if the Pentagon is actually planning to have 200,000 troops in Iraq by year's end. However, in light of some of the other things going on it seems entirely plausible.
Consider that troops in theater are now serving 15 month tours instead of 12 month tours. The moment that news hit the stands every Soldier I know remarked that 15 months probably implied 18 months in reality. Once you are in theater, you are stuck there.
Second, consider that there are really no new manpower resources in the pipeline to sustain the current level of force commitment in Iraq. Despite Secretary Gates' pledge to increase the troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps, those boys and girls in uniform just aren't there yet, and they aren't signing up in great enough numbers to provide fresh troops to the theater in any meaningful way. Note that's "fresh" troops, as in new to the fight, not the same old Soldiers and Marines who have been cycled through the war two, three, even four times already. While it is true that troops who have already served under combat may be more resiliant and capable than brand new troops, everyone has their breaking point. The Soldiers and Marines doing repeat tours, to say nothing of their families, are swiftly approaching collapse.
Even if this administration enacts a draft, we could not expect to have new troops on the ground any sooner than a year from now. One has to wonder what the long-term plan for our committment in Iraq really is. If the "surge" is not working (and reports suggest that we are best keeping up, not achieving victory) we are taking a great risk by concentrating so many resources in one area and underserving other threats.
One interesting aspect of the "surge" is how it has affected the Army rumor mill. I have been a Soldier for over eleven years, both enlisted and officer, and I know how rumors tend to flow around the military. One of the most telling rumors to cross my path in the past few months is speculation that certain officer groups are going to be "branch stop-lossed"--ie, entire branches of Army officers will be prevented from leaving the Army at the end of their contracts. Rumor has it that this branch stop-loss will be applied to intelligence, aviation, and medical officers. Of course there is no way to know if this is true. But I think the mere existence of those pervasive rumors is a window into the morale and everyday worries of troops on the ground these days.
I feel that those who support the war are skillfully using the presence of troops already in theater to prevent meaningful discussion on the effects of this war on our armed forces and our nation as a whole. It is interesting to me that anyone who talks about downsizing our force in Iraq is accused of "not supporting the troops," as if preserving combat power was somehow hurting our military. In a way, it is like being held hostage. While I am a Soldier and a volunteer, I rather resent the stifling of dialogue that suggests that the current way is the only way. We are so deeply committed to the Iraq fight that we may be losing sight of other current and future threats. Whatever you think of the war in Iraq, we cannot afford to ignore what else is happening.
It is always instructive to hear from those who have directly experienced conditions of a war so preposterously politicised by elements certain that remaining in conflict will allow us to work out of the current quagmire. This report has the ring of truth to it although other military members might assess it differently. I commend this soldier's report but its existence chills me to the bone.
No matter what the cost, no matter the lack of results, no matter the lack of resolve from those Iraqi officials whose election was to provide some ultimate justification of this conflict, no matter what has to be sacrificed, it will be done and the chips will fall where it has always been predictable to from the start by wise counsel ignored. It will likely take a generation before the consequences of the hubris and deception involved in the conduct of this "war of liberation" will be cleared from the world's palate. The bad taste will endure, the damage done and the questions about why we could not extract ourselves from the mindset of delusional leadership will reverberate for years to come.
