"Surging to Defeat in Iraq"

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/12/18/surging_to_defeat_in_iraq.php

Comments

[zanzibar]

Under our system of government can the President just order military forces into action at his whim? Are there no requirements for Congress to approve such action other than fund it? Is there any precedent where the President has ordered military action but Congress has said no and not funded such action? What happens in such a situation legally and in reality?

I am trying to understand what recourse saner voices have to prevent this defeat for America the nation and its people. It is clear that the Decider and his "Rasputin" only care about the perceptions about them and not the country, so what can concerned citizens do?

[Propagandist]

Strong words in defense of your country and all those who serve. Thanks PL.

[John Shreffler]

Col.,

Thank you. If we can't change things, at least we can speak up. You tell it better than anyone. Thank Mr. Mcgovern too.

[MarcLord]

These flocking idiots. Can't read history. Can't read reality. Can't accept facts. Bob Gates is no Clark Clifford. There are going to be a lot of P.O.'d vets coming back who have lost their families to "attrition," and some of them are the world's best snipers.

[ikonoklast]

"... once an “all or nothing” offensive like the “surge” contemplated has begun, there is no turning back."

Too right and too sad, as Bush, like Ahab, apparently has no intentions of turning back. Excellent piece.

[jamzo]

well-said

thank you gentlemen

[J]

Colonel,

what as a nation are we to do when our nation's leadership won't listen to sanity or reason? should we not seriously consider putting such leadership where they won't ever hurt our nation again -- as in prison cells? their criminal malfeasance of office, and our nation becomes the victim of their crimes.

double impeachment, and criminal prosecution of bush, cheney, and the congressional leadership who were the participant accessories in their criminal malfeasance of office against our nation and our military family.

[Richard Whitman]

Two questions

1.What happens after we win??

2.What happens after we lose??

[Duncan Kinder]

During the Syracusan Expedition, Athens, when the Expedition first stalled, responded by committing the remainder of its resources to it.

The result was the total rather than the partial destruction of Athens' strength.

[Matthew]

J; Listen to reason? It's all about spin. And not just here. After Olmert made his "slip" about nuclear weapons, a European diplomat asked Israel to "clarify" its position on nuclear weapons, i.e., go back to claiming strategic ambiguity. Maybe he thought the Muslim world wouldn't notice. No wonder the ME is slipping away.

[John]

Great thoughts, PL. Who would have guessed the Westmorelandfication of Iraq was the key to "victory?" This tragedy is unfolding in slow motion; bloody lying act by bloody scene - though we have know the end since Rumsfeld dismantled the Army's Pentagon office of low intensity conflict, attempted to decommission the war college office of peace operation studies, and smite General Shinseki. (Apparently Gen Keane failed to learn the lessons from his only combat tour, Vietnam - undertaken as a lieutenant.)

[John Howley]

"Only 28 percent of Americans say they approve of the way President Bush is handling Iraq," reports CNN's senior political analyst Bill Schneider. "Disapproval has reached 70 percent."

[Jaime Gormley]

Given the collegial relations shared by Hizb'Allah and Jaish al Mahdi, one would expect Operation Wacht am Tigris to include many unpleasant surprises. A fitting climax to a "strategic disaster of epic proportions." Shock and awe, indeed.

Undoubtedly, General Pace and the Chiefs, unlike Olmert, Peretz and Halutz, have sound intelligence, considered every eventuality, planned accordingly and will do a heck of a job. I wonder if they had the foresight to include General van Riper in their deliberations? We'll soon know for sure.

[dano]

Tomorrow - or more likely today as you read this - is the anniversary of the end of the Battle of Verdun ninety years ago. In 10 months France and Germany lost over 700,000 casualties, including nearly 250,000 dead. Germany had attacked what it perceived to be a French weak point in hopes that it could win a war of attrition. By the end a few kilometers of front were exchanged, but neither side gained an objective or even an advantage.

I do not think there is any comparison of tactics or strategy to be made between Verdun and Iraq. But perhaps we can use the lesson of history to expose the futility of a lost cause, and the utter hopelessness of throwing more good lives after preceding deaths. But these leaders today - like those who preceded them ninety years ago - somehow are blind to what appears so obviously to so many others.

This time though, there have been enough historical lessons of the futility of fighting a lost cause for honor and for the saving of face. The people of the democracy recognize what their leaders do not and even, perhaps, will choose to do something about it. The leaders of this impending debacle may eventually have to answer for their willfullness in defying their own people's will and desire, and the aggregate desire of the world.

While the world may not be able to do much to slow down or reverse the war machinations of the leaders, the people of the US have begun to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the conduct and willfullness of their leaders. The American voters spoke once during the recent election, and even the advice of les éminence grises seems to be contrary to the leaders recent directions and future intentions. The leaders seem to have only themselves and their closest vassals in agreement. They hold power, but they are isolated.

As long as they hold power they will continue to lead down the same path that has been unsuccessful for many months. It seems an easy prediction to say that their continued failure is assured. Sadly this means more death and mayhem on both sides. Perhaps it means though, more evidence for when the people finally stand up and demand that the leaders and their vassals be condemned for their bloody defiance.

At the end of The War To End All Wars, Verdun was simply one of the biggest yet inconclusive battles, and a useless slaughter. Similarly, the coming surge of Baghdad will likely be another bloody marker of history that serves to extend but not decisively affect the outcome of the war by America against the former country of Iraq.

War is the extension of politics, and in this case the politics seem particularly personal for the leaders of the US. They have their reasons for clutching to the illusion that they can affect the outcome, but by now the people know that the illusion is just that - an illusion - and the intensely personal desire of the leaders does not serve the people of either side of the conflict. In this narrow sense the surge of Baghdad will be not unlike any of the stalemated battles of WWI, which served mainly the vanity, pride and "honor" of the kings and princes of the time, but did nothing to alleviate the suffering of the people. Back then the people of imperial rulers had very little recourse. Now, the people can call their leaders to account.

18 December 2006

[still working it out]

I wonder if this surge of troops is really intended as extra backup for when the fireworks start with Iran.

[arbogast]

The theme that I hear becoming louder and louder is the a surge may result in a decisive military defeat.

We are not up against stone-age tribesmen in Iraq. We are up against an intelligent enemy fighting on his home turf. An enemy who speaks a language all but 6 Americans in Iraq do not understand.

There has been a coup d'état in the United States. The country is in the hands of a tiny clique of people who have betrayed their fellow citizens.

Impeachment is necessary. Impeach Bush and Cheney now.

[anna missed]

The current "surge" in attacks against Americans, as reported by the NYT's, up 20% over the last three months -- is perhaps the veiled reason for an additional 20% increase in troop levels -- either just to keep up with the current higher levels of attacks, or more ominously, to prevent a full scale breach while Bush is still in office.

[Ian Whitchurch]

I'd make one more point about this para

'What Gates may not realize, but the generals should, is that once an “all or nothing” offensive like the “surge” contemplated has begun, there is no turning back. It will be “victory” over the insurgents and the Shia militias or palpable defeat, recognizable by all in Iraq and across the world.'

The highest likelihood is for such a surge to kill some but not all of the insurgents - thus leaving a significant level of violence once the surge is over.

As this will clearly not be victory, it will therefore be seen as defeat.

Ian Whitchurch

[Nand Jagnath]

For Nazi Germany, the surrender at Stalingrad ultimately culminated in the fall of Berlin.

Colonel, if your scenario is correct, it won't be necessary to attack Iran to create an irretrievable mess.

Worse, an ignominous U.S. defeat in Iraq will make the world and the Middle East vastly unsafer. A U.S. that is able to use its 'hard' and 'soft' power with discretion is, in my view, essential for global stability. I don't think any other nation or grouping of nations can fill the U.S. boots for that role at present.

If my history serves me correctly, the fall of the Roman Empire was the start of the Dark Ages in Europe. I can't help wondering if something similar is around the corner.

[Frank Durkee]

Questiion? does the group who published your essay have a web site? If so how does one enter it?
Thanks

[Don Schmeling]

I think you people are starting to hyperventilate a little bit. The SURGE, when and if Bush orders it, will make little difference. That is because the US Army is trying to do a job (set up a US puppet country.) it is not equipped or trained for, and is almost impossible anyway.
Now, the job of leaving Iraq, is just the type of thing this Army is good at. If the Army has to make it's way back South it will be able to blowup anything and kill anyone in it's way. No more trying to understand the locals.
As for the end of the US empire, look for example to Britian, now one nation amoung many, not the worlds only Super Power. The Pound Sterling now one currency amoung many also.

[backsdrummer]

I like the comparison with Nicholas II and Rasputin.

This article reminded me of something I read in "The Ideology of the Offensive: Military Decision Making and the Disasters of 1914", by Jack L. Snyder.

In Snyder's analysis, the Russians of 1914 had a "need to see the necessary as possible." (page 17)

So when it became necessary for the Russians to immediately invade Germany (in order to draw away German troops attacking their overwhelmed French allies), they believed their Armies were capable of victory even though a rational analysis would indicate they did not yet have their wagons and supplies sufficiently gathered or organized to carry out such an undertaking.

Thus the Russians advanced short on ammunition and hungry into East-Prussia, and kept right on advancing when intelligence indicated they were being surrounded, until thousands were killed and captured at Tannenberg; a disaster that could easily have been avoided if only a modest amount of common-sense had been exercised.

I'm sure if we could ask the Russian leadership why they were embarking on such an irrational course of action, they would have listed all kinds of dire consequences for not "staying the course".

I think perhaps Bush and Cheny see the necessary as possible too, and they will throw in their last handful of reserves in hopes of fixing things in Iraq.

It's like watching a guy gamble away his family home and savings on increasingly longer-odds bets, in the hope that he can win it all back with just one more try. The only problem is, it OUR children's lives and money Bush is gambling away. Perhaps he should talk to Gambler's Anonymous.

[John Hammer]

"Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?"

Diplomat Brady Kiesling Feb. 24 2003

[JM]

One thing's for sure: there will be lots of Medals of Freedom to hand out at the end of all of this (assuming it ever ends).

Think Bush will award one to himself?

[Robert in SB]

So does the Decider get to ride the US military off a cliff? I've always tried to avoid phrases like Constitutional crisis,etc, but the course the White House seems to be intent on creating one. How bad it will get before the Military says enough? When they literally can't get out? How do you get 150,000 soldiers out of a country that can and will turn on them?
What has happened to the former country of Iraq is savage enough, but what Bush is doing to our military is Evil.