Showing posts with label surge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label surge. Show all posts

Monday, January 22, 2007

Commandos in Karbala... new game

David Seaton's News Links
It's front page news in today's Washington Post and well it should be. The audacity and quality of execution of the commando attack in Karbala, which cost the life of 5 Americans, probably officers of significant rank, opens a cruel new chapter in the ongoing Iraqi fiasco.

This attack sends a powerful message. Only Americans were killed... this in the land of indiscriminate suicide bombers who kill dozens of innocent passersby at random. The message to the USA is its precision. Obviously the message to Iraqis who are willing to cooperate with the American occupation forces is clear: the visitors know perfectly well who is who, but next time they won't make such careful distinctions.

The United States' professional armed forces are well trained and superbly equipped and their advantage in fast moving, high tech "modern battlefield" situations is probably insurmountable. However, in commando work, which is low tech and "personal", training, however exhaustive and "realistic" is no substitute for the "real thing". After their eight year war, unsurpassed for its brutality, the officers and most especially the noncoms of the commando forces of both Iraq and Iran probably have between them more "practical" experience in this sort of face to face, short distance warfare than all the other regular soldiers in the entire world taken together. They add to that experience command of the local languages, exhaustive knowledge of the terrain, cultures, tribal loyalties. And, of course, plenty of inside information. As to motivation, they are fighting a foreign invader who is kafir to boot.

Bush's latest error is declaring what most experts consider an inadequately conceived and undermanned "surge",
a "decisive battle". In this way Bush is inviting the insurgents to take actions like these that play to their comparative advantages and which give the impression that the Americans are not in control. This commando raid in Karbala is probably the first of a series of daring actions to come. With the political climate in the USA solidly against the war, risks taken in this kind of action, could have huge payoffs. In short, although spectacular, this will be no video game. DS

Disguises Used in Attack on Troops - Washington Post
Abstract: The armored sport-utility vehicles whisked into a government compound in the city of Karbala with speed and urgency, the way most Americans and foreign dignitaries travel along Iraq's treacherous roads these days. Iraqi guards at checkpoints waved them through Saturday afternoon because the men wore what appeared to be legitimate U.S. military uniforms and badges, and drove cars commonly used by foreigners, the provincial governor said. Once inside, however, the men unleashed one of the deadliest and most brazen attacks on U.S. forces in a secure area. Five American service members were killed in a hail of grenades and gunfire in a breach of security that Iraqi officials called unprecedented.(...) U.S. military officials said Sunday that they could not discuss the attack in Karbala in detail because it remained under investigation. But they said the version of events provided by the governor's office was consistent with their preliminary findings. After arriving at the Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Karbala, 60 miles southwest of Baghdad, the attackers detonated sound bombs, Iraqi officials said. "They wanted to create a panic situation," said an aide to Karbala Gov. Akeel al-Khazaali, who described the events with the governor's permission but on condition of anonymity because he fears reprisals. The men then stormed into a room where Americans and Iraqis were making plans to ensure the safety of thousands of people expected to visit the holy city for an upcoming holiday. "They didn't target anyone but the American soldiers," the governor's aide said. After the attack, the assailants returned to their vehicles and drove away. It was unclear how many people participated, and the men's identities and motive remained unclear, but the attack was particularly striking because of the resources and sophistication involved, Iraqi officials said. The men drove off toward the city of Babil, north of Karbala, where they shot at guards at a checkpoint, said Capt. Muthana Ahmad, a police spokesman. Vehicles later recovered contained three bodies and one injured individual. The U.S. military took possession of the vehicles, the spokesman said.(...) "The way it happened and the new style, the province has not seen before," said Abdul al-Yasri, head of the provincial council in Karbala. "And this will make us insist on carrying on the security procedures even on official delegates and diplomats when they are coming to Karbala province." READ IT ALL

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Surge me, Bushman? The reviews pour in

"I have never seen him, in public or private, look less convincing, less sure of himself, less cocky. With his knitted brow and stricken features, he looked, well, scared." Howard Fineman - Newsweek
David Seaton's News Links
The President of the United States (that used to have a real ring about it, didn't it?) announced his plan for victory. He laid an egg. It's easy to gloat, but this is probably the most dangerous moment in international affairs since the Cuban Missile Crisis. As I said yesterday, this man is the most empowered instrument of death in history. Genghis Khan, for example, did it all with bows and arrows; Bush really has WMDs. Bush is looking at a degree of public failure, repudiation and even universal public ridicule that perhaps no other human being has ever had to endure before. His entire life's work (being somebody) is crumbling before the eyes of every human being with access to a TV or the Internet. His reaction may very well be like some George Raft gangster in an old late night movie, "come and get me copper, you'll never take me alive!). I truly doubt that he will let himself be led away quietly. DS
The Real Disaster - Editorial - New York Times
Abstract: President Bush told Americans last night that failure in Iraq would be a disaster. The disaster is Mr. Bush’s war, and he has already failed. Last night was his chance to stop offering more fog and be honest with the nation, and he did not take it. Americans needed to hear a clear plan to extricate United States troops from the disaster that Mr. Bush created. What they got was more gauzy talk of victory in the war on terrorism and of creating a “young democracy” in Iraq. In other words, a way for this president to run out the clock and leave his mess for the next one. READ IT ALL

Mr. Bush's Strategy - Editorial - Washington Post
Abstract: The new plan for the war Mr. Bush outlined last night is very risky. It envisions new missions and dangers for U.S. troops and counts on unprecedented military and political steps by the Iraqi government. The plan is likely to cause a spike in U.S. casualties, while the chances that it will stabilize Iraq are far lower. Moreover, Mr. Bush appears prepared to embrace this approach despite strong opposition from Congress and the public -- setting up a conflict that in itself could hurt the war effort. READ IT ALL

Defiance and delusion - Editorial - The Guardian
Abstract: George Bush's announcement last night that he is going to pour more troops into Iraq was the last throw of the dice in a misconceived enterprise that has dragged his country, this country and the Middle East into a nightmare. The package includes 17,500 more combat troops for Baghdad and 4,000 more marines for Anbar province, the cockpit of the Sunni insurgency. Over $1bn will be spent in economic aid. In return the Iraqis are to promise to crackdown on insurgents, regardless of sect or religion. In opting for a troop surge, Mr Bush has ignored the message of the mid-term elections, the Iraq Study Group, Congress, his own top generals and most world opinion. US generals have difficulty enough maintaining current levels of combat-ready troops and are not convinced that more troops will make any difference. Rather than listen to them, Mr Bush has turned to the right, to those who argue that honour and the America's national interests require fighting on. One senses that "honour" is the more important of the two. READ IT ALL

"Warning Americans that 2007 would be another year of continued violence, bloodshed and American casualties, President Bush unveiled his "new way forward" on Iraq Wednesday evening. But the speech was as much a testament of failure as it was a blueprint for what to do next." Michael Duffy - Time

Poll: Most Americans Opposed to Bush's Iraq Plan - Washington Post
Abstract: A majority of Americans oppose sending additional troops to Iraq as outlined by President Bush in his nationally televised address Wednesday night, and just one-in-three Americans said the plan for more troops and a stepped up combat efforts by Iraqi forces make victory there more likely, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. The findings of the survey, conducted after Bush's primetime speech, represent an initial rebuke to the White House goal of generating additional public support for the mission in Iraq. The poll found that 61 percent of Americans oppose sending more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq, with 52 percent saying they strongly oppose the plan. Just 36 percent said they back the president's new proposal.(...) Only two in five (40 percent) said the war was worth fighting. While that is slightly better than the 36 percent figure recorded in a poll a month ago, it is consistent with polls dating back almost two years. Similarly, just 34 percent said they approve of Bush's handling of the war, another slight tick up from last month but a measure of the broad disapproval of the president's leadership that has been evident since 2005. Americans are even more pessimistic than before about the state of the conflict. In the new poll, 57 percent said the United States is not winning war, the highest yet recorded. That comes after even Bush acknowledged setbacks and mistakes and after he and new Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have said they United States is not winning at this point. In December 2005, 56 percent of Americans said the United States was winning the war.(...) Fifty-six percent of men oppose the president's plan while 66 percent of women oppose it. Women also are more likely to support efforts in Congress to cut off funding, with 57 percent saying they would back Democratic moves to do so compared to 48 percent of men. Sixty percent of Americans between ages 18 and 39 support cutting off funding, compared to 51 percent of those between 40 and 59 and 43 percent of Americans over age 60. READ IT ALL

President George W. Bush's plan to boost U.S. forces in Iraq drew fire from Republican senators and from Joseph Biden, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who called it ``a tragic mistake.'' The plan is ``the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam,'' Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican of Nebraska, told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a hearing of the committee today. Bloomberg

Surge towards debacle in Iraq and MidEast - Editorial - Financial Times
Abstract: George W. Bush’s new direction in Iraq is certainly not a strategy for victory, whatever that word, which is used ever more desperately by the US president, now means. It may be one last heave. It may be a cover for US withdrawal. But two things are quite clear. Right now, Mr Bush has the support of no more than one in four Americans for this so-called surge of an extra 20,000 or so troops. Very soon, as the already indecipherable ethnic and sectarian patchwork of Iraq is pulled further and even more bloodily to pieces, he will have none. Second, this policy will not succeed in fixing an Iraq traumatised by tyranny and war and then broken by invasion and occupation. But it may end with the US “surging” into Iran – and taking the Middle East to a new level of mayhem that will spill into nearby regions and western capitals. Mr Bush’s body language in the speech bespoke a chastened man. Yet, caught in a wilfully spun web of delusion and denial, he seems still unable to comprehend the depths of the debacle he has caused in Iraq.(...) like everything they have tried since, this is far too little, much too late.(...) It is hard, even for ardent democrats, to see this Iraq as a young democracy fighting for its life, as Mr Bush’s discourse of good guys against bad guys would have it. The invasion has solidified a system divided into sects and operating on the basis of patronage and intimidation. The composition of parliament is nearly two thirds Islamist. There are no institutions.(...) The only feasible way forward is the approach of the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission – which the new US Congress should embrace and insist on.(...) “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops” he said on Wednesday. “We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria.” The Iraq surge is beginning to look like the Vietnam escalation, spilling over into Iran and Syria the way that one did into Cambodia and Laos. Mr Bush is right to argue that defeat in Iraq would be very serious. He is wrong in failing to recognise defeat is what he is staring at – and that this approach will help guarantee it. READ IT ALL

The speech reflects a profound misunderstanding of our era. America is acting like a colonial power in Iraq. But the age of colonialism is over. Waging a colonial war in the post-colonial age is self-defeating. That is the fatal flaw of Bush's policy.
Zbigniew Brzezinski - Washington Post
(To be continued)

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Bush's blue surge birthday suit... waiting

David Seaton's News Links
At this moment, while we wait for him to announce his plans for "victory," a word that he says the American people "understand", all of us should be thinking about all the human beings that have died or have been mutilated and all the human beings that are about to die or to be mutilated because of what is behind, or missing behind, the eyes in this photograph. Finally that is the center of the question. This bumbling sociopath might literally be the most empowered instrument of death in history. He appears the closing chapter in the story of a great republic; what he leaves behind him, being neither great, nor even a republic any more. DS

Monday, January 08, 2007

Bush: a cuckoo in America's nest

Department of Psychiatry - University of Illinois at Chicago
"What’s clear is the enormous price our nation is paying for President Bush’s character flaws."
Paul Krugman - New York Times
David Seaton's News Links
I've come to the tentative conclusion that George W. Bush is some sort of "Manchurian Candidate", a cuckoo egg laid in the American nest by some foreign power that wants to manipulate the United States. There are many dark passages
in his youth where relevant documents are said to have disappeared. What if the intelligence service of a country with an ax to grind in the USA (what country doesn't?) had obtained evidence that would destroy Bush, even today, if revealed and had been blackmailing him and simultaneously propitiating his career till this day. Far fetched? Yes, certainly, but could you say that it is more far fetched than his strange behavior? To check out this theory a little farther you'd have to see if any country with a competent intelligence service is especially benefited by Bush's bizarre performance. DS

Why Hawks Win - Foreign Policy Magazine

Abstract:
Option A: A sure loss of $890

Option B: A 90 percent chance to lose $1,000 and a 10 percent chance to lose nothing.
In this situation, a large majority of decision makers will prefer the gamble in Option B, even though the other choice is statistically superior. People prefer to avoid a certain loss in favor of a potential loss, even if they risk losing significantly more. When things are going badly in a conflict, the aversion to cutting one’s losses, often compounded by wishful thinking, is likely to dominate the calculus of the losing side. This brew of psychological factors tends to cause conflicts to endure long beyond the point where a reasonable observer would see the outcome as a near certainty. Many other factors pull in the same direction, notably the fact that for the leaders who have led their nation to the brink of defeat, the consequences of giving up will usually not be worse if the conflict is prolonged, even if they are worse for the citizens they lead. U.S. policymakers faced this dilemma at many points in Vietnam and today in Iraq. To withdraw now is to accept a sure loss, and that option is deeply unattractive. The option of hanging on will therefore be relatively attractive, even if the chances of success are small and the cost of delaying failure is high.

Daniel Kahneman is a Nobel laureate in economics and Eugene Higgins professor of psychology and professor of public affairs at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

Jonathan Renshon is a doctoral student in the Department of Government at Harvard University and author of Why Leaders Choose War: The Psychology of Prevention (Westport: Praeger Security International, 2006). READ IT ALL (hat to Paul Krugman)

Sunday, January 07, 2007

Surge: learn nothing, forget nothing

The Nightmare, 1781, Henry Fuseli

"Two months after Americans spoke decisively on Election Day, the president is determined to overrule them. Our long national nightmare in Iraq, far from being over, is about to get a second wind."
Frank Rich - New York Times

“They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing”
Charles M. de Talleyrand, 1754-1838

“It is easier to stay out than get out.”
Mark Twain, 1835-1910

David Seaton's News Links

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Neocons trying for Little Big Horn

George Armstrong Custer
David Seaton's News Links
The Surge: At this point, Iraq having descended into total chaos, the neocons are advocating a classic, "boots on the ground - hearts and minds", counterinsurgency operation. With Iraqis now only in agreement on one thing, they hate Americans, having American soldiers intensively patrolling the streets of Iraq is an invitation to hundreds of tiny battles of the Little Big Horn. The "butcher's bill" (charming British army term) will be dreadful. "Force Protection" is the obsession of America's professional military. Any hint that US infantry is being used as cannon fodder would dry up recruiting totally. The neocons are famous as "chicken hawks", very generous with the lives of others... especially those of the young rednecks that make up the backbone of America's military caste and who provoke so much derision from Borat. The danger of American unity being openly split on ethnic, class, caste and tribal lines is real. DS
Neocon old guard back on Iraq policy - Los Angeles Times
Abstract: Ever since Iraq began spiraling toward chaos, the war's intellectual architects — the so-called neoconservatives — have found themselves under attack in Washington policy salons and, more important, within the Bush administration.(...) But now, a small but increasingly influential group of neocons are again helping steer Iraq policy. A key part of the new Iraq plan that President Bush is expected to announce next week — a surge in U.S. troops coupled with a more focused counterinsurgency effort — has been one of the chief recommendations of these neocons since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.(...) If Bush goes ahead with the surge idea, along with a shift to a more aggressive counterinsurgency, it would in many ways represent a wholesale repudiation of the outgoing Pentagon leadership. These leaders — particularly former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the departing Middle East commander — strongly resisted more U.S. troops and a larger push into troubled neighborhoods out of fear it would prevent Iraqis from taking over the job themselves and exacerbate the image of America as an occupying power.(...) The neoconservative group had been the driving force in Washington behind a move against Iraq, even before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. They saw Hussein as a lingering threat to world security — a view bolstered within the administration following 9/11. And they argued that transforming Iraq into a democracy could serve as a model to remake the Middle East's political dynamics. The problems with the war gradually undermined the clout they had wielded. But perhaps the more important hurdle to their views being heeded — especially on military matters — was the White House's refusal to see its Iraq policy as a failure. READ IT ALL