And it's on...

The gloves came off today. Nancy Pelosi came right out and said publicly that Bush is in such a hurry to insert more troops into Iraq because he knows that Congress won't cut off funding for troops already in the field.

The White House fired back, calling the Speaker's remarks "poisonous" and denying the political nature of Bush's escalation, insisting the president is ordering the troops in because he thinks it's right, not for political reasons.

Bush "has dug a hole so deep he can't even see the light on this. It's a tragedy. It's a stark blunder." Pelosi said at the National Press Club earlier today. Her salvo came as former Congressman Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the Iraq Study Group, said the escalation would be counterproductive, delaying the pace of training Iraqi security personnel, and delaying the exit of American forces from Iraq. "You delay the date of completion of the training mission. You delay the date of handing responsibility to the Iraqis. You delay the date of departure of U.S. troops" from the region, Hamilton told the House Foreign Affairs Committee about the buildup.

Meantime, Republican Senators were getting together and parsing the wording of the non-binding resolution and making slight edits to the text that would allow them to cross the aisle and vote with the Democrats when it comes up in the Senate next week.

As for me, I'm ready for the Democrats to start fighting. Hubert Humphry Democrats didn't restore the majority. Harry Truman Democrats, however, are experiencing a resurgence. And not a moment too soon!

Brits Drawing Down in Iraq?

George Bush stubbornly forges on with his wacky scheme to stabilize a country of 26 million who all want us gone with an additional 21,500 troops; refusing to acknowledge the opposition in congress, the opposition by the American people, the dissension in the ranks or to even the fact that he was rebuked in an election a mere two months ago.

It's a shell-game really. Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the quietest months have been the first 1/2 Friedman Unit, so when they say "We'll know in a couple of months whether it's working." you know damned good and well they are looking at those stats and playing the timing angle, trying to capitalize on anything they can grasp onto.

But it gets better than mere mendacity on the part of the Bush administration. While we are escalating, the Brits are ginning up to draw down.

If Bush goes ahead with a troop buildup in Iraq, with some of those troops culled from the fight in Afghanistan, here is what I I fear happening:

• The Harper Government falls in Canada and the next government will withdraw from the NATO effort in Afghanistan.
• The British start withdrawing from Iraq, leaving the United States to pretty much go it alone in major combat operations.
• The number of Americans killed in battle will rise to 150-200 per month. I hope it doesn't go higher.
• Within 30 days of escalated conflict, a unit will get cut off in Sadr City and be lost. It will be the Blackhawk Down moment we have been fearing.

That's just some of what I see coming out of the Dionysian little moron's grand scheme for escalation of hostilities. I hope like hell I'm wrong, but I am pessimistic. Nothing these jackals have suggested thus far has worked. I see no sense to trust them again. In fact, I would prefer to see the lot of them in a dock at The Hague, standing trial for war crimes.

For Those Keeping Score at Home...

We have had no shortage of new strategies for Iraq. The casting about wildly has been going on for quite some time.

Who remembers Operation Together Forward, rolled out on 09 June 2006? Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced that in an effort to quell violence in Baghdad they would employ checkpoints and a curfew that kept Iraqis indoors from 9:00 pm to 6:00 am...I repeat...In June...In Baghdad...with spotty electric at best.

The result was not decreased violence. The plan failed utterly and completely. By the end of July, it was abandoned.

On July 25, 2007 Bush and Maliki announced that 4000 troops would be repositioned to Baghdad from other areas of the country. This action does nothing to quell the violence in Baghdad, and violence flared in the areas where troops had been pulled out. This led to Senator McCain's famous Whack-a-Mole remark.

Operation Together Forward II was introduced the first week of August. Joint teams of Iraqi and American soldiers began clearing neighborhoods, house-to-house. Areas that had been cleared were to be handed over to Iraqi police.

This nag barely made the first turn. The Iraqis had committed to provide six battalions, but only produced two. Areas that were "cleared" of insurgents and handed over to the Iraqi police did not stay cleared or secure past sundown of the second day. By late October, the U.S. military command in Iraq formally affixed the stamp of failure.

And now he comes before us and tells us he has ordered a futile troop buildup.

This president has been absolutely wrong about absolutely everything up to this point. What, pray tell, exists in his record that would imply he has any prayer of ever having a clue? Let alone the wisdom to extract our country from this clusterfuck?

Wesley Clark: Bush's 'surge' will backfire

The rise in troop numbers could reduce the urgency for political effort

--by Wesley Clark
Published: 07 January 2007
The Independent

The odds are that President George Bush will announce a "surge" of up to 20,000 additional US troops in Iraq. But why? Will this deliver a "win"? The answers: a combination of misunderstanding and desperation; and, probably not.

The recent congressional elections - which turned over control of both houses to the Democrats - were largely a referendum on President Bush, and much of the vote reflected public dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. Most Americans see the US effort as failing, and believe that some different course of action must be taken. Most favour withdrawing forces soon, if not immediately. The report of the Iraq Study Group is widely seen as a formal confirmation of US failure in Iraq.

The country's action there has been the very centrepiece of the Bush presidency. With two years left in office, he would, of course, try to salvage the situation. Many Americans remember the 1975 evacuation of the US embassy in Saigon, with desperate, loyal Vietnamese friends clinging to the skids of the American helicopters. No one wants that kind of an ending in Iraq. And our friends and allies in the region are also hoping for the US to pull some kind "rabbit from the hat", even if it seems improbable, for a US failure would have grave consequences in the region. Iran, especially, is the beneficiary of a failure, and al-Qa'ida will also try to claim credit.

From the administration's perspective, a troop surge of modest size is virtually the only remaining action inside Iraq that will be a visible signal of determination. More economic assistance is likely to be touted, but in the absence of a change in the pattern of violence, infrastructure enhancement simply isn't practical. And if the President announces new Iraqi political efforts - well, that's been tried before, and is there any hope that this time will be different?

As for the US troops, yes, several additional brigades in Baghdad would enable more roadblocks, patrols, neighbourhood clearing operations and overnight presence. But how significant will this be? We've never had enough troops in Iraq - in Kosovo, we had 40,000 troops for a population of two million. For Iraq that ratio would call for at least 500,000 troops, so adding 20,000 seems too little, too late, even, for Baghdad. Further, in a "clear and hold" strategy, US troops have been shown to lack the language skills, cultural awareness and political legitimacy to ensure that areas can be "held", or even that they are fully "cleared". The key would be more Iraqi troops, but they aren't available in the numbers required for a city of more than five million with no reliable police - nor have the Iraqi troops been reliable enough for the gritty work of dealing with militias and sectarian loyalties. Achieving enhanced protection for the population is going to be problematic at best. Even then, militia fighters in Baghdad could redeploy to other areas and continue the fight there.

What the surge would do, however, is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut US forces' morale, and risk further alienation of elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops are on the streets; we saw this when the brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad last summer. And even if the increased troop presence initially intimidates or frustrates the contending militias, it won't be long before they find ways to work around the obstacles to movement and neighbourhood searches, if they are still intent on pursuing the conflict. All of this is not much of an endorsement for a troop surge that will impose real pain on the already overstretched US forces.

There could be other uses for troops, for example, accelerating training for the Iraqi military and police. But even here, vetting these forces for their loyalty has proven problematic. Therefore, neither accelerated training nor more troops in the security mission can be viewed mechanistically, as though a 50 per cent increase in effort will yield a 50 per cent increased return, for other factors are at work.

The truth is that, however brutal the fighting in Iraq for our troops, the underlying problems are political. Vicious ethnic cleansing is under way right under the noses of our troops, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces - it cannot be smothered easily, for additional US efforts can stir additional resistance - but rather from more effective action to resolve the struggle at the political level. And the real danger of the troop surge is that it undercuts the urgency for the political effort. A new US ambassador might help, but, more fundamentally, the US and its allies need to proceed from a different approach within the region. The neocons' vision has failed.

Well before the 2003 invasion, the administration was sending signals that its intentions weren't limited to Iraq; Syria and Iran were mentioned as the next targets. Small wonder then that Syria and Iran have worked continuously to meddle in Iraq. They had reason to believe that if US action succeeded against Iraq, they would soon be targets themselves. Dealing with meddling neighbours is an essential element of resolving the conflict in Iraq. But this requires more than border posts, patrols and threatening statements. Iran has thus far come out the big winner in all of this, dispensing with long-time enemy Saddam, gaining increased influence in Iraq, pursuing nuclear capabilities and striving to enlarge further its reach. The administration needs a new strategy for the region now, urgently, before Iran can gain nuclear capabilities.

America should take the lead with direct diplomacy to resolve the interrelated problems of Iran's push for regional hegemony, Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Isolating adversaries hasn't worked. The region must gain a new vision, and that must be led diplomatically by the most powerful force in the region, the United States.

Without such fundamental change in Washington's approach, there is little hope that the troops surge, Iraqi promises and accompanying rhetoric will amount to anything other than "stay the course more". That wastes lives and time, perpetuates the appeal of the terrorists, and simply brings us closer to the showdown with Iran. And that will be a tragedy for not just Iraq but our friends in the region as well.

Retired General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of Nato, is a senior fellow at UCLA's Burkle Center for International Relations

The Resurection of the Neocons

Someone fetch me a wooden stake and a mallet. The time is nigh to kill the Neocon movement once and for all. They have been totally, 100% wrong in absolutely everything they have engaged in up to this point so why in hell would anyone consider acting on their advice ever again? I'm still working out a just and fitting punishment for the singularly craven adherents of that particular nihilistic political philosophy.

It's the remnants of the Neocon movement (like Bill Kristol) firmly ensconced at think-tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, who are behind the call for a troop buildup and escalation of hostilities. That, in and of itself, is sufficient grounds to reject the notion as feckless folly.

And since I brought up the AEI, lets have some new rules for just who exactly gets to call themselves a think tank, whaddya say? For instance, if you have been irrefutably wrong in every policy position you have advocated, you don't get to call yourself a think tank. Likewise, if you advocated a preemptive war and scornfully disregarded warnings that a civil war would be the end result, you don't get to call yourself a think tank.

Personally, I can't get over the chutzpah. The good ship Neocon proved less seaworthy than the SS Minnow and Gilligan looked like Admiral Nelson in contrast to the abilities of the neocons to write and enact policy.

Bug Hunt

Is this gonna be a stand-up fight, Sir, or is this gonna be another bug hunt? ---Pvt. Hudson, Aliens

What the president misled the country into isn't a stand-up fight. It's a bug-hunt.

A year ago the president was promising that by the end of 2006 troops would be withdrawing from Iraq. The mission, such as it has never actually been defined except as ...to win, that's the mission, was supposed to evolve to focus on high-level specific strike operations against high level terrorist targets.

A year later the meme seems to be "Well gee, we had a splendid plan, but those Iraqi's just cocked it all up by insisting on having a civil war!" Guess what, neocons? We tried to tell you that when you toppled the dictator the artificial construct that was Iraq would implode and a power vacuum would suck the civil out of the cradle of civilization.

Pardon me if I don't get on board and feel sorry for the president because his shiny "plan" got broken and didn't work. He had plenty of people making accurate predictions and he chose to ignore those of us who have been proven to be right.

Hell, he's still insisting Saddam was a threat, for crying out loud!

Now the president wants a troop buildup and an escalation of hostilities.

He wants to send an additional 25,000 troops to Iraq, bringing troop levels back to about 165,000. When we say we are sending 25,000 troops, that means that there will be approximately 8,000 more ground pounders and the rest support personnel.

It's too little too late. How will this make a difference when we knew going in that it would take 400,000 to hold the country and it would probably still have devolved to something resembling chaos?

The U.S. troops are sitting ducks in the middle of a civil war. The only thing the warring factions have in common? They all hate the Americans. The people killing Americans are elusive. They have the home-field advantage and they can set an IED or fire a shot from a sniper nest, and immediately fade into the population, unnoticed.

The violence against Americans is ratcheting upward. December was the bloodiest month of the bloodiest year and it only looks to get worse.

I am so sick of people spinning the casualties as not so bad because other conflicts have been worse. The nature of warfare has changed and this conflict has very little in common with conflicts of the past. For starters, this conflict is staged from bases and the troops are not sleeping in foxholes. This is a largely urban guerrilla war and the comparisons they offer have not been. The troops have body armor that saves a lot of lives that would have been lost otherwise - just like antibiotics did in World War II. The number of troops engaged in theater are a lot less than they were in those other conflicts too, by the way - Vietnam had over a half million American troops in-country at the height of hostilities.

In other words, when someone plays down the numbers, they are actually engaging in a little bit of intellectual dishonesty by setting up what is known as a false equivalency.

It's like when they say that more military personnel died on Clinton's watch - they take all numbers of troop demise under the Clinton administration - natural causes, accidents, off-base bar-fights, and they make a bar-graph. Then they do the same with the Iraq war and say "See? That awful Clinton killed more troops than Bush!" It is, of course, bullshit. If you put those same numbers with the war casualties, the Bush graph would tower over the Clinton graph, but that wouldn't serve their purposes.

If anyone thinks the Republicans have been chastened i have a bridge to sell you. They will keep engaging in the soft duplicity of false equivalencies, and it is up to us to expose them for what they are.

BIDEN OPPOSES TROOP BUILDUP

"Mr. President, this is your war." --Sen. Joseph Biden

Senator Joseph Biden, Democrat of Delaware, and incoming chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee has stated unequivocally that he opposes any escallation or troop buildups that would insert 20-30,000 additional troops into Baghdad.

This places him firmly at odds with fellow 2008 presidential hopeful, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, who was one of the first to call for an escallation of troop numbers to try to quell the sectarian violence in Baghdad. The country would appear to be on Senator Biden's side, given that only 11% of Americans favor such a buildup.

"Absent some profound political announcement . . . I can't imagine there being an overwhelming, even significant support for the president's position," he told reporters during a telephone conference call Tuesday.

If the violence continues two years from now, "every one of those Republican senators — and there's 21 of them up for re- election — knows that that is likely to spell his or her doom," Biden said.

Senator Biden has already informed Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice that she appear before his committee to answer questions about the President's "new and improved" Iraq war plan as soon as it is announced next month. The Secretary has agreed.

I am glad to see Biden taking this stand, vowing to take on this fight, but then I am always glad to see Democrats show signs of spinal fortification.

What we had on November 7 was not just an election - it was an intervention. And like so many addicts, the president charmed his way out the door with words of contrition, and ten minutes later he was back on the streets, trying to score more and more powerful drugs.

Americans Overwhelmingly Reject the Idea of a Troop Buildup

As the year winds down the talk of a troop buildup escalates, and Senators and presidential candidates are jockeying for position. There's a new sheriff in town, and he jetted off to Baghdad and was on the ground within 48 hours of being sworn in.

I almost let myself feel hopeful for a second, and then I remembered I knew him when. Gates, the original fixer, did not disappoint me. He wasted no time, but got straight to carrying water for the administration and getting the Generals singing from the administrations hymnbook. That trip to Baghdad wasn't to assess the situation and move forward and if you believe it was, go look in the mirror because I will wager your upper lip is grape Kool-Aid purple. This administration is just totally fucking rotten with naked banal perfidy. I'm counting down the days and hoping for some sort of intervention in the interim, because I don't want to see what damage the idiot prince can wreck in another two years.

Does anyone else flash on Anthony, the little boy in It's a Good Life (the creepiest episode of The Twilight Zone ever) when George Bush gets petulant? (You do now. Sorry for the nightmares.)

Well, Gates is back from Baghdad, and his first week was...interesting. The Generals have done an about-face and now think more troops is a good idea. The president wants additional troops, although we aren't sure which 20,000 he has in mind - Does he mean 20,000 total, which would put about 7000-8000 pairs of boots on the ground? Or does it mean 20,000 ground-pounders and 30-40,000 support personnel for a troop buildup of 50-60,000? They aren't saying. But if it's the former, they aren't going to be very effective, and if it's the latter it will place a strain on the armed services that could potentially have significant long-range consequences for our military capabilities and readiness.

Every officer holds a special position of moral trust and responsibility. No officer will ever violate that trust or avoid his responsibility for any of his actions regardless of the personal cost. An officer is first and foremost a leader of men. He must lead his men by example and personal actions. Troops must be led; and an officer must therefore set the standard for personal bravery and leadership. All officers are responsible for the actions of all their brother officers. The dishonorable acts of one officer diminishes the corps; the actions of the officer must always be above reproach.

They were honor-bound to stick to their guns - so to speak. The Generals sold their souls, and they abandoned their troops. There is no honor among them. They are craven, and they are feckless. In my heart I have torn the stars from their epaulets and cast them into the mud. They do this, while a thousand of the troops they are supposed to lead, many of them officers, have signed an Appeal for Redress, and many more are engaging in protected communications with their represetatives in congress? They do this when they were sent into an unwinnable war based on phonied intelligence? They dishonor the men and women who served under them and made the ultimate sacrifice by playing politics with war. They punked their troops. No, I turn my face away from them. They are a shameful, pitiful disgrace to the uniforms they tarnish every time they don the cloth.

I know, pretty strong words. But that is exactly how I feel. It took thirty years to build the all volunteer military; then they let George play with it, and now it's broken. And when the Generals had a chance to stand firm, they crumbled like sugar cookies. Abizaid is retiring, but he is going along too. Perhaps not enthusiastically, but he isn't making any statements of principle, either.

The General's really blew it. They had a golden opportunity to not only lead, but boost enlistments and applications to OCS in evey branch, and elevate the character of the military leadership in the public mind; and then they didn't stand up like men. Imagine...Three flag-ranks - who were junior officers during the Viet nam war, so they know what it feels like to get punked by the top brass - stand up to the Fixer and threaten to resign if this wacky scheme is given any traction at all. Imagine the popular support they would have had! A whopping 11% of American support a troop buildup. But instead, the feckless Generals went along with the feckless president; and now they are all doomed to join Westmoreland in the Hall of Shame.

Operation Together Forward: II

Who believes this is all coincidence...first the announcement is made that the size of the armed services needs to be beefed up permanently. A couple of days later, they start talking of a "surge" of troops to stabilize Baghdad. The Generals initially resisted; but now, suddenly have capitulated. Then the Friday News Dump...The test of the Selective Service.

No way this is all coincidence and I can't believe even the distracted and appathetic American public isn't raising hell about this. Let the draft notices start landing in mailboxes in Overland Park and Leawood and we will hear a chorus of outrage, and no one will be raising hell with Kelly Feigenbaum any more, calling her selfish for not offering up her son to be saccrificed in Iraq.

When they talk about a surge, they are talking about escalation. Call it what it is. It's a troop buildup and the result will be an escalation of hostilities. The result will be ramped up death and destruction. The result will be bloody fucking chaos and we can not stand by and let this happen.

I am hearing people on the left say that we should let them have their "surge" and when it fails the Republicans will be done for decades.

What utterly crass and craven perfidy.

No one, and I do mean no one, who has ever put on the uniform or loved someone who did can stomach the thought that anyone would view the life of a single troop as expendable in the interest of some future election.

Bush's troop-buildup is not a done deal. The new congress will be seated before the call-up can go out, and they can enact some oversight and accountability. If you oppose the actions that are brewing, contact the chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees. Senator Levin can be reached by clicking here, and Congressman Skelton can be reached by clicking here.

Not to repeat myself, but for years Americans have said they were mad as hell and not gonna take it any more. Once more I ask...Do you mean it yet?

What's the common thread?

The Decider is furiously creasing his brow, trying to determine whether a surge of troops is a good idea or not, while the Joint Chiefs of Staff are reluctant to embrace this notion.

Let's look at who comprises the Joint Chiefs, what years they entered into military service and what in history might be shading their opinions, shall we?

Chairman: Gen. Peter Pace...................................................1967
Vice Chair: Adm. Edmund P. Giambiastiani, Jr.....................1970
Army Chief of Staff: Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker....................1969
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael G. Mullen..............1968
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley..................1972
Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. James T. Conway...1970

These men were all junior officers during the Vietnam war.

When the president says "surge" that isn't what they are hearing. They are hearing what everyone old enough to have memories of Viet Nam hears. Troop Buildup. It didn't work back then when it was foisted on them, and it won't work now. However, now they aren't Lieutenants and Ensigns. They are Generals and Admirals. Now they can push back. They owe it to the troops in their command to do so.

Troop buildup coming?

Fox news has been reporting that the president is "leaning towards" sending an additional 20-30,000 troops into Iraq - A final putsch, if you will.

Not to be too cynical, but does anyone remember Cheney being summoned to Riyadh a couple of weeks ago? Mary hadn't announced the pregnancy yet, so he wasn't appearing for a command performance to accept the congratulations of the Saudi royal family on impending arrival of his sixth grandchild.

The Saudis are in a tenuous position as a kingdom and a country, and they are not at all thrilled with that sectarian civil war in Iraq raging next door. Do you recall the nationality of most of the 9/11 hijackers? If you said Iraqi's you need to go back to middle school on the short bus and demand that you receive the Social Studies education that is your right.

If you said Saudi's, you get a peanut-free, gluten-free, low-sodium cookie with 0 grams of trans-fat.

I can see Darth Cheney being taken to the woodshed by Emperor Palpatine er, I mean King Abdullah, and I gotta admit, it gives me a tingly feeling. You know he doesn't tell Abdullah to go f*ck himself. In fact, you just know that Mr. Swagger-n-Leer is a cowering boot-licking minion in the presence of the Saudi King.

Abdullah somberly informed Vice that the Saudi's would have no choice but to fund and materially support the Iraqi Sunni militias if the U.S. pulls out too soon. They are also discouraging talks with Iran and encouraging peace talks with Israel and the Palestinians.

Anyone else have a WTF?!?!? moment there? Of course the Saudi Wahabist Sunni's would prefer we avoid talking to their sworn adversaries the Persian, Shi'ite Iranians!!! We aren't going to listen to this BS, are we? Silly question...we may not, but Bush/Cheney will, while we shake our heads incredulously and watch these dumbshits try desperately to put out a fire by throwing petrol on the flames.

It would be a suckers bet to put a few bucks on the Saudi's being the authors of this current more troops idea. It isn't hard to see it, either. They are the only ones who stand to benefit from the wacky scheme.