Ok Sam, I'll explain one more time and I'll try to use small words. Here is the surge strategy as outlined by Bush: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html
Actual plan from the Whitehouse, not anyone's interpretation of the plan. Just the President's. And here is where he lays out the surge strategy: "So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs." The plan was to go in with a commanding force, drive the insurgents out of the Baghdad neighborhoods and establish a security force there to prevent them from re-entering. Counter insurgency is a great thing. It was to be expected that plans for it would be put in place with Petraeus in charge since that is his specialty. Counter insurgent actions are a priority in Afghanistan as well. We have to win the hearts and minds battle as always. But no matter how you try and slice it, the surge strategy laid out by Bush was not what we are talking about in Afghanistan. And that's fine. There is no reason for it to be. Afghanistan has its own challenges and its own conditions on the ground. Different strategies are required. There is no logical reason for the Iraqi surge plan to be appropriate for Afghanistan. So why the fuck do you keep arguing that the surge in Iraq was a classic counter-insurgent operation and is therefore what we need in Afghanistan? As near as I can tell, the only reason people keep talking about the surge being needed in Afghanistan is because it is the closest thing that the administration has gotten to a right answer in Iraq. Stop politicizing military efforts in Afghanistan. Judah On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can't believe I need to spell everything out for you. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007 > The plan began with a major operation to secure Baghdad, codenamed > Operation Fardh al-Qanoon (Operation Imposing Law), which was launched > in February 2007. > > However, only in mid-June 2007, with the full deployment of the > 28,000 additional U.S. troops, could major > <LOOK>counter-insurgency</LOOK> > efforts get fully under way. Operation Phantom Thunder was launched > throughout Iraq on June 16, with a number of subordinate operations > targeting insurgents in Diyala province, Anbar province and the > southern Baghdad Belts.[56][57] The additional surge troops also > participated in Operation Phantom Strike and Operation Phantom > Phoenix, named after the III "Phantom" Corps which was the major U.S. > unit in Iraq throughout 2007. > > I left the useless stuff in because it matters to you. > > http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/01/mideast/military.php > U.S. general urges troop _SURGE_ in Afghanistan > > WASHINGTON: The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan said > Wednesday that he needed more troops and other aid "as quickly as > possible" in a > <LOOK>counterinsurgency</LOOK> battle > that could get worse before it gets better. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:272236 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
