Everyone is, of course, familiar with Groundhog Day, the movie in which Bill Murray keeps waking up to discover that he has to relive the same day, over and over again, until he gets it right.
By all accounts, President Bush’s Great Leap New Way Forward for Iraq consists, basically, of escalating the conflict by sending over something like 22,000 more troops. “New”? Hardly. From the information posted here by Senator Kennedy yesterday:
Troop Escalation has been tried Before with No Long Term Success
Troops were increased by 15,000 to 137,000 to quell Maqtada al Sadr’s uprising (December 2003-April 2004). April 2004 was the second bloodiest month of the war for our troops. Today, Maqtada al Sadr is more powerful then ever and is currently commanding a militia of 60,000 followers.
Troops were increased by 12,000 to 150,000 to route out insurgents from Fallujah and provide security for the January 2005 elections (November 2004-March 2005). Today, the situation in Fallujah, part of Anbar Province is dire. In fact, it was the subject of recent Marine Corps report stating that, “prospects for securing that country’s western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there.”
Troops were increased by 22,000 to 160,000 to provide security for the constitutional referendum and parliamentary elections (September-December 2005). The increased troops levels provided calm on election days but did not have a long-term effect on stability for the country.
Troops were increased by 12,000 to 140,000 to stabilize Baghdad (June-October 2006). This fall was the bloodiest ever for our troops since the war began.
Any particular reason it should work this time?
kbusch says
At Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall gets a hold of Lt. Gen. David Petraeus’ counterinsurgency field manual. That manual asserts that “counter-insurgency operations require at least 20 combat troops per 1000 people”.
<
p>
What does that mean?
<
p>
Number of U.S. comabt troops in Iraq 70,000 Number of U.S. combat troups needed for Baghdad 120,000
ed-prisby says
<
p>
That’s 1 soldier for every 50 Iraqis. Keith Olbermann asserted on MSNBC the other night that the 20,000 increase in troops would bring the level to 1 soldier per every 100 Iraqis.
<
p>
So, depending on how you look at it, we need either twice as many troops as are there, or none at all.
yellow-dog says
In his new bipartisan mood, Bush’s most recent strategy for Iraq is a compromise between stay the course and cut and run. It’s called “run in place.” It gets you nowhere, but at least it looks like you’re doing something.
<
p>
And it’s better than the slogan for the Bush White House: Running with scissors.
<
p>
Mark
sharoney says
<
p>
Why? Because he said so, of course!
jasper says
As a friend once said of my idea to make Groundhog Day a national holiday or at least a town holiday, ‘Jasper, that turkey don’t fly.’ You see the groundhog as he explained ain’t a salubrious animal to some. Like what that Clinton did when he was in charge, it wasn’t salubrious. (my friend has one of those new calendars from his neice and that’s his today word.) so they tried to get him out of there ‘cos he wasn’t salubrious, never mind that most of us have done what he did or wished we did or lied about it like he did but it didn’t kill anybody. Now killin’, last I looked wasn’t salubrious at all to anyone and that is what this Bush fella is doin’. Bear that in mind. This ain’t some damn tv show. Simple as that. So if good ole boy Bill can get his comeuppance for his lack of delicacy shall we say, why not get some old tired lawyer (we got quite a few in town) to go down there and try to spirit GW out of town? Be good to make a point sometimes even if it ain’t considered salubrious. Nothin’ more harmful than people dyin’ and that’s a fact. More folks in uniform to stop the killin’? That old groundhog will see his shadow every time on that one. You can bet on it. Last time we tried that stunt, nothin’ salubrious come out of it. Not at all.
mannygoldstein says
He’s been out in front of these dirtbags from the very start. He voted against the AUMF – none of that finger-in-the-wind nonsense. I remember him sputtering on the TeeVee about Bush being a liar several years ago, well be fore it was fashionable.
<
p>
Now he’s using actual facts to demonstrate what delusional failures the Bushies are.
<
p>
Go Ted!
geo999 says
Ted’s a man of real, er, ah, ummmm, integrity.
Yeah, that’s it.
Integrity.
annem says
from Congress.org/bio
<
p>