Heres TIMEs Mike Duffy also suggesting that Bush is preparing an Alamo strategy. For those of you who are unfamiliar, the Battle of the Alamo is where Texas colonists and others made famous by this history, made a last ditch stand against Gen. Santa Anna and the Mexican army in 1836. As the story goes, Gen. Travis drew a line in the sand with his sword, and asked the bravest to step over it to fight to the death. The Mexican siege was a complete slaughter. Texans got revenge at the subsequent Battle of San Jacinto, when they butchered the Mexican Army sleeping off a drunken fiesta, not a glorious strategic recovery. There is still a tremendous amount of mythology around the Alamo, it symbolizes much of that Texas character
What the Surge really means: "For years now, George W. Bush has told Americans that he would increase the number of troops in Iraq only if the commanders on the ground asked him to do so. . . . "Seasoned military people suspected that the line was a dodge--that the civilians who ran the Pentagon were testing their personal theory that war can be fought on the cheap and the brass simply knew better than to ask for more. In any case, the President repeated the mantra to dismiss any suggestion that the war was going badly. Who, after all, knew better than the generals on the ground? "Now, as the war nears the end of its fourth year and the number of Americans killed has surpassed 3,000, Bush has dropped the generals-know-best line. Sometime next week the President is expected to propose a surge in the number of U.S. forces in Iraq for a period of up to two years. . . . "The irony is that while the generals would have liked more troops in the past, they are cool to the idea of sending more now. That's in part because the politicians and commanders have had trouble agreeing on what the goal of a surge would be. But it is also because they are worried that a surge would further erode the readiness of the U.S.'s already stressed ground forces. And even those who back a surge are under no illusions about what it would mean to the casualty rate. 'If you put more American troops on the front line,' said a White House official, 'you're going to have more casualties.'" "Is the surge Bush's last stand?" "Probably yes, whether Bush intends it that way or not. There is always a chance that a surge might reduce the violence, if only for a while. But given that nothing in Iraq has gone according to plan, it seems more likely that it won't. That's why many in the military assume privately that a muscular-sounding surge now is chiefly designed to give Bush the political cover to execute a partial withdrawal on his terms later. We think that by bringing the level of violence down and bringing the level of Iraqi support up, we will be able to begin to hand over the country," Kagan told TIME. Asked what happens if the surge fails, he added, "If the situation collapses for some other reason--loss of will in the U.S., say, or an unexpected Iraqi political meltdown, then the reduced violence will permit a more orderly withdrawal, if that becomes necessary, mitigating the effect of defeat on the U.S. military and potentially on the region." A retired colonel who served in Baghdad put it more bluntly: "We don't know whether this is a plan for victory or just to signal to Americans that we did our damnedest before pulling out." "There is one other scenario to consider: it may be that Bush won't pull out of Iraq as long as he is President. Whether it works or not, a surge of 18 to 24 months would carry Bush to the virtual end of his term. After that, Iraq becomes someone else's problem. Bush's real exit strategy in Iraq may just be to exit the presidency first." http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1574148,00.html <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1574148,00.html> ALSO SEE Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joe Biden (D-DE) said he believes top officials in the Bush administration - "maybe even including the vice president" - have "privately concluded they have lost Iraq and are simply trying to postpone disaster so the next president will 'be the guy landing helicopters inside the Green Zone, taking people off the roof,' in a chaotic withdrawal reminiscent of Vietnam." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/04/AR2007010401 525.html <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/04/AR200701040 1525.html>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
