Caesar Bush warned in his Wednesday speech that his New Way Forward would be bloody. Thats because the Last Stand is a likely replay of the Shock and Awe tactics used in 2003, the we have other means to fulfill our objectives an anonymous official referred to last week. And the UN just reported today that 34,000 Iraqis were killed in 2006, another 36,000 injured.
Reports are that generals would have preferred to have these additional troops 2 years ago, but fear now they will just be new targets in a radically altered Baghdad. Of the 21,500 troops deployed (not counting military civilians in support roles), 17,000 will be stationed to 24 hr patrols in Baghdad. That averages out to 5,000 or so to each shift, in a city of 6 million. That is why the naval component, mostly ignored by the media, is the greater threat. This time, Iraqis are not being liberated, they are being benchmarked. Bush has already received failing grades from his own countrymen, which explains why he is taking such a desperate risk to redeem himself, escalating more troops into a situation that military experts and others predict will result in mass slaughter. Yes, thats what we should expect. Gates has said that some troops will arrive in February, more in March. Read more on that, below. As last Thursdays Washington Post Editorial asked, Bush is gambling with US troops, why doesnt he gamble with his diplomats? * Because US diplomacy fails if it depends on Bushs credibility. And we know *someone* doesnt like to fail, or admit failure. * Because *someone* has convinced him this can still be won with hardware and trinkets to placate the restless natives. (Hadley memo) * Troops will be in country before the next supplemental bill is necessary, avoiding a showdown with Congress over FY2008 budgets this fall. * The White House thinks Baghdad can be subdued by August, enough to pull out *some* troops while a calm exists, saving face. For an excellent summary of what can be expected and who whispered in a desperate ear, read this from the Sunday Times of London. Perhaps Bush made a personal connection with these other sons of famous men. Iraqis get a bloody all-firing foretaste of Bushs last gamble http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-524-2546344-524,00.html <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-524-2546344-524,00.html> ESCALATION and EXPANSION NEXT Gunboat Diplomacy: the watch on the Gulf The American naval presence in the gulf is the Fifth Fleet, based in Manama, Bahrain. It usually numbers around 20 ships, capable of putting 15,000 sailors and marines afloat. Its principal component is a carrier battle group, so adding a second will, in effect, double its air and sea power. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/weekinreview/14kifn.html <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/weekinreview/14kifn.html> MUST SEE graphic http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/01/13/weekinreview/20070114_MARSH_GRA PHIC.html <http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/01/13/weekinreview/20070114_MARSH_GR APHIC.html> NOTE: The second carrier is the USS Stennis Strike Group, NIMITZ class. Will Iran respond as desired to Gunboat Diplomacy? Ray Takeyh, an Iran expert at the Council on Foreign Relations <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/council _on_foreign_relations/index.html?inline=nyt-org> , thinks not. More likely, he said, is that the more radical militants will use this to berate the more moderate and the notion of accommodating Western audiences will diminish. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/weekinreview/14kifn.html <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/weekinreview/14kifn.html> COMMENTARY 011407 LA Times ED Bushs Idle Threat: Pres. Bush told the nation that "America's commitment is not open-ended" in Iraq. By Friday, however, the administration was already backsliding. What wasn't open-ended, apparently, was just US support for Iraqi PM Maliki. When it comes to American boots on the ground, according to Defense Secretary Gates, the US is in Iraq for the long haul. This is not what the American people want; this is not what the Iraqi Study Group recommended; and it is not the best way to prosecute a war against the radical Islamists who attacked this country on 9/11. It is, instead, a way to guarantee that the US military will be dangerously overstretched and needlessly vulnerable to sectarian militias in Iraq. Even as the president was delivering his address, administration officials were whispering to reporters (including some for this newspaper) that "simply coming home isn't an option" and that Maliki's days may be numbered. This would, to put it gently, undermine the White House's claim to be pushing toward increased Iraqi sovereignty. To the contrary: It would require ever-greater US responsibility for a post-totalitarian country sliding deeper into anarchy. Unfortunately for Bush, and for the rest of us, "we can't fail" is not a strategy. As painful experience has shown in Iraq, it is a recipe for further failure because it encourages wishful thinking at the expense of realistic planning. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-iraq14jan14,0,7640069.story?coll=l a-opinion-leftrail <http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-iraq14jan14,0,7640069.story?coll= la-opinion-leftrail> Niall Ferguson reluctantly concludes it is Blue Helmet Time in Iraq: For Iraqis to recognize the legitimacy of any force, Bush has to hand over the country's security to the United Nations. [E]ven if the president were in a position to send in 215,000 extra men, I doubt they would suffice to halt the civil war. Why? Because, having been the war makers who precipitated Baghdad's descent into anarchy, US forces now lack the legitimacy to be regarded as peacemakers. But what's the alternative? Sooner or later, the president's critics must realize that it is not he and his advisors who will pay the heaviest price for their blunders, but the people of Iraq. Their country may be, as Churchill said, an "ungrateful volcano." Yet who precisely stands to gain if that volcano is allowed to erupt? After all the disappointments of the 1990s, I never thought I would see myself write these words, but here goes: It's time to send in the blue helmets. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ferguson15jan15,0,6902122.column?c oll=la-opinion-rightrail <http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ferguson15jan15,0,6902122.column? coll=la-opinion-rightrail> George Will Bushs Hail Mary Pass But the president is right in framing his new policy as a ukase to Iraq's government: We are buying you time, and not much of it, for you to dash to competence concerning security matters. Bush's policy probably will not succeed, but at least we will know what were the parameters of the possible, given the government produced by those Iraqi elections that once were the source of so much U.S. confidence. America's November voting produced Wednesday's change in Iraq policy. Voters did not, however, intend to bring on what is coming: Chechnya in their living rooms - a spike of high-intensity, high-casualty urban warfare, televised. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011201 949.html <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR200701120 1949.html> Fareed Zakaria Even if we win, we still lose: Over the past three and a half years, the dominant flaw in the Bush administration's handling of Iraq is that it has, both intentionally and inadvertently, driven the country's several communities apart. Every seemingly neutral actionholding elections, firing Baathists from the bureaucracy, building up an Iraqi military and police forcehas had seismic sectarian consequences. The greatest danger of Bush's new strategy, then, isn't that it won't work but that it willand thereby push the country one step further along the road to all-out civil war. Only a sustained strategy of pressure on the Maliki governmentunlike anything Bush has been willing to do yethas any chance of averting this outcome. Otherwise, American interests and ideals will both be in jeopardy. Al Qaeda in Iraqthe one true national-security threat we face from that countrywill gain Sunni support. In addition, as American officers like Duke and Brady have noted, our ideals will be tarnished. The US Army will be actively aiding and assisting in the largest program of ethnic cleansing since Bosnia. Is that the model Bush wanted for the Middle East? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16610769/site/newsweek/ <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16610769/site/newsweek/> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ UN reports 34,452 Iraqis killed in 2006, more than 36,000 were wounded. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/world/middleeast/16cnd-iraq.html <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/world/middleeast/16cnd-iraq.html>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
