Reid and Pelosi tell Bush "surge has failed"

[scottinnj]

Iraq surge a failure, top Democrats tell Bush (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070613203802.7yla5iav&show_article=1)

Now I know we all argued about the "The war is lost" quote by Reid in another thread, but this story is interesting and I am glad to see Reid and Pelosi's disagreement with the President's policy be directed at the President, not generalized to include the U.S. military.


And BTW, even though I disagreed with Reid with what he said before, I still agreed with him in principle. And this is putting me and him more in sync with each other.

[Midkiff]

Bush sucks

his trumped-up war will never succeed with him at the helm

[scottinnj]

I have to reluctantly agree with you. Which is too bad for our boys and girls who believe in what they are doing and are being wasted away. Fuck this President-I swear to God, being a Republican used to mean you respected the military and used it effectively. Now it's the liberals who "support the troops" better then my side does.

[El Mudo]

Surge did fail...


http://www.insulators.com/news/images/surge2.gif


And it was a sad day...I liked that soda...I'm glad they bought it back as "Vault"

[torker]

He went Hollywood.
http://www.sfstation.com/images/articles/46/2046b.jpg

[high fly]

How could the "Surge" possibly fail?



First they announced generally what they were going to do.

Then they announced which units would be deployed.

Then they announced where and when those units would be deployed.

Then they announced the rules of engagement those units would follow.

Then they announced it would be a short-time deployment.

Then they announced they had no plan B.




Isn't that the sort of information that, y'know, nations have always needed to use spies to find out?
Imagine if, before D-Day, the Germans had the same information..........

[Yerdaddy]

See I actually take issue with the Dems on tihs statement. The surge is failing - it hasn't failed. Yet. But the last of the additional troops have just arrived and it's too early to tell if the surge can't succeed. The military is scheduled to report to Congress on the state of the surge in September. That's the time to say it's succeeded or failed. Right now you still have to use the gerund. It's failing.

That assessment is supported by the military's quarterly report on the state of Iraq that was just submitted. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/13/AR2007061302357_pf.html)

But talk of the surge shoule is predicated on the fact that the surge cannot win the war for us - it can only improve the failure and manage the damage.

The surge plan itself is proof of the failure of the Bush strategy for the previous three years. The long plan has been to get Iraqi forces out in front of fighting the various insurgent groups so American soldiers can "stand down". The surge strategy is for American forces to provide the lead on security while they try to improve the Iraqi forces and "provide the political space" for the Iraqi government to work on reconciliation by securing Baghdad and Al-Anbar. It's a strategy that is based on the fact that the previous policy is an utter failure and that the administration, (and the military itself), has been lying to the public about the state of the Iraqi forces. And as shitty as that assessment sounds, it's still an improvement! At least it's based on a little bit of reality.

And most of that is still dependent on the Iraqi government. They have to bring political reconciliation and so far they haven't shown a capacity to do that. The fact is the election system we created guaranteed Iraqis would vote down sectarian and ethnic lines and create a government represented by the hardliners of those factions. Or, rather, two of the factions - the Sunnis are largely out of the process altogether. But bottom line is that the success or failure of the surge is going to be determined by our ability to convince the Iraqi factions to take real steps towards reconciliation. Which requires masterful and realistic diplomacy. Which we suck at.

But in security terms the surge has not reduced the overal violence in Iraq - it has merely driven it from Baghdad and Al-Anbar to other parts of the country. The last two months have still been the most violent since the invasion of Fallujah in '04.

I honestly don't see how the suge can succeed. I'm still supporting it merely because the people running it are finally competant people who are realists. But I have very low standards. Not just in women.

So I was happier with Reid's previous comment on the war in general because I think America needs to come to terms with what is possible and not possible in Iraq, and with the consequences of what we've done. I'm still waiting, however, for someone to explain to the public what is really at stake in Iraq, (and the region), so that we can think in broader terms than the retarded "should I stay or should I go" dichotomy that exists in the public mind now. We can't pull all the troops out and we won't. Not for a long time. And we can't send in much more, and we can't keep the current levels up for long. And we won't. But that's all we talk about.

[high fly]

Iraq surge a failure, top Democrats tell Bush (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070613203802.7yla5iav&show_article=1)

Now I know we all argued about the "The war is lost" quote by Reid in another thread, but this story is interesting and I am glad to see Reid and Pelosi's disagreement with the President's policy be directed at the President, not generalized to include the U.S. military.


And BTW, even though I disagreed with Reid with what he said before, I still agreed with him in principle. And this is putting me and him more in sync with each other.

Yeah, because in the previous quote Reid said the Surge would not succeed because Bush was in charge.


Yerd, sure, we have competent people in the field, but have you ever read David Hackworth's About Face?
Great book.
In it, there is a section where Hackworth was assigned to go on a tour with S.L.A. Marshall to examine what went right and what went wrong in various battles, and to reexamine our tactics and strategy.
A HUGE error in what we were doing in Vietnam was we were using troops trained to fight conventional warfare tactics in an unconventional war.
Counterinsurgency tactics vary widly from conventional ones, and Hackworth concluded and gave oodles of information that supported his conclusion that the worst troops to use in fighting an insurgency are Marines and airborne troops.

The mistake we are repeating is we are not using counterinsurgency-trained troops - Green Berets - to fight an insurgency.
This leads to the enemy getting stronger and more adept at killing us while more and more we are resented by the populace for tearing up their country.

[Yerdaddy]

Yeah, because in the previous quote Reid said the Surge would not succeed because Bush was in charge.


Yerd, sure, we have competent people in the field, but have you ever read David Hackworth's About Face?
Great book.
In it, there is a section where Hackworth was assigned to go on a tour with S.L.A. Marshall to examine what went right and what went wrong in various battles, and to reexamine our tactics and strategy.
A HUGE error in what we were doing in Vietnam was we were using troops trained to fight conventional warfare tactics in an unconventional war.
Counterinsurgency tactics vary widly from conventional ones, and Hackworth concluded and gave oodles of information that supported his conclusion that the worst troops to use in fighting an insurgency are Marines and airborne troops.

The mistake we are repeating is we are not using counterinsurgency-trained troops - Green Berets - to fight an insurgency.
This leads to the enemy getting stronger and more adept at killing us while more and more we are resented by the populace for tearing up their country.

Do we have enough Green Berets to do the job now? Emphasis on "now". We're three years late on starting a counterinsurgency strategy. So I think it's less about who's doing the fighting as who's directing the fighting.

Petraeus co-wrote the new field manual on counterinsurgency, (which is online for some reason - PDF (http://usacac.army.mil/cac/repository/materials/coin-fm3-24.pdf)), and he had proven successes in Mosul (http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/isept/4_airborne.html)in the first year of the war. He should have been put in charge of forces on the ground back then. But he's there now. And much of the surge is based on his counterinsurgency planning. It's too little and too late, but it's better than... what? We got no other choice. So I support it.

[A.J.]

I honestly don't see how the suge can succeed.

I agree. Especially since Death Row Records is near bankrupt.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/Suge_knight.jpg

[high fly]

Do we have enough Green Berets to do the job now? Emphasis on "now". We're three years late on starting a counterinsurgency strategy. So I think it's less about who's doing the fighting as who's directing the fighting.

I doubt we have nearly enough Green Berets to do the job.
Tactics in counterinsurgency warfare are contrary to the habits developed under conventional warfare training.
Yes, having the proper leadership is important, but what is done on a local level is critical.
For example, in conventional warfare, a commander must employ the maximum amount of firepower whereas in couterinsurgency, he must employ the minimum.
I have read exerpts from Galula's classic book on the subject and a few things come to mind.
One is that prisoners must be treated with much kindness and even set free while misdeeds by one's own forces must be treated harshly and as publicly as possible.

I do not believe we have the forces to get the job done, nor do I believe we can implant 1,000 years of culture into those people.
Whether we are there 6 months from now or 60 years from now, factional fighting for power will continue until one strong man or another emerges after a particularly gruesome set of bloodbaths to impose the sort of dictatorship that is the only thing that can hold these groups together to have a nation-state.

Our presence in Iraq is the best thing that ever happened for terrorist recruiting, for we are tromping all over the second-holiest land in Islam. We are breeding more enemies than we are killing.

[high fly]

Here are some exerpts I jotted down from David Galula's classic book on counterinsurgency warfare, Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice. This book is taught in our military schools.

"The battle for the population is a major characteristic of the revolutionary war... The objective being the population itself, the operations designed to win it over (for the insurgent) or to keep it at least submissive (for the counterinsurgent) are esssentially of a political nature... And so intricate is the interplay between the political and military actions that they cannot be tidily separated; on the contrary, every military move has to be weighed with regard to its political effects, and vice versa."

"A soldier fired on in conventional war who does not fire back with every available weapon would be guilty of dereliction of his duty; the reverse would be true in counterinsurgency warfare, where the rule is to apply the minimum of fire."

"Conventional operations by themselves have at best no more effect than a fly swatter. Some guerrillas are bound to be caught, but new recruits will replace them as fast as they are lost."

"Since antagonizing the population will not help, it is imperative that hardships for it and rash actions on the part of the forces be kept to a minimum. The units participating in the operations should be thoroughly indoctrinated to that effect, with misdeeds punished severely and even publicly if this can serve to impress the population."

"Demoralization of the enemy's forces is an important task. The most effective way to achieve it is by employing a policy of leniency toward prisoners. They must be well treated and offered the choice of joining the movement or of being set free."