The New Plan for Iraq

[Jedburgh]

On 5 Feb 07, CSIS updated the paper I linked to in my earlier post in this thread:

The New Bush Strategy for Iraq: What are the Chances of "Victory"?

[goesh]

I think the Dems in power will attach cuts in funding to various bills and starve US forces out, like accumulating ticks on a dog that eventually weaken it. Pretareus and innovation aside, no cash, no go.

[120mm]

Kind of a "I support the troops, but want to see them lose" sort of deal?

Yep, that's exactly what I see happening, also.

[goesh]

Yup, 120 mm, you called it right. Ain't it amazing how all our professional, highly trained, motivated, disciplined, experienced, well equiped volunteer forces can be the victim of one man, George Bush? Our Legislators will kill them out of sympathy for their victimhood, diminishing operational capability by cutting funds which in turn increases the threat level and causality incidents. The SOBs will call them heroes, George's victims and justify the increased KIA/WIA rates to poor planning. I would assume their will be some attrition in the ranks of Officers once the dust is all settled and the 'victims' are home, which of course the SOBs will justify by claiming they were just saying NO to George Bush. It's enough to make a grown man vomit.

[SSG Rock]

I'm going to keep this short. I'm seething with anger at the Democratic controlled Congress and their stupid, nonbinding vote.

I have maintained throughout this war that war opponents were hiding behind the inane statement "I support the troops but not the war". This lie is now fully exposed. It has been a disengenuous effort to create a "bulletproof" position in the debate, a stand that nobody could possibly disagree with. But it was a blatant lie and always was. The exposing of this lie began with Durbin and Murtha, and ended with Engle and Arkin, these people just can't keep their mouths shut, they always tip their hand sooner or later. This stupid, meaningless vote that does NOTHING to assist our troops is the icing on the cake. How far are we from witnessing the spectre of our troops being spat upon when they come home?

The Democratic leadership doesn't care about our troops. Rather, they care more about their political position than winning the war. With campaigning season rapidly approaching, they aim to please their anti war core first and foremost. But, I think it's safe to say, that the anti war voting block will be counter balanced somewhat by the military vote. I also think it's safe to say that there won't be many active duty voters, casting a vote for any Democrats after this surge vote. And I think that goes for military retirees as well. I know I wouldn't vote for a Democrat if you pulled my fingernails out.

I raise my glass to our troops, who continue to defy the odds, and to accomplish what the Democratic controlled congress has said is impossible. I raise my glass to our troops and their leaders who never waivered and who are now on the cusp of turning this thing around.

[Jedburgh]

CSIS, 14 Mar 07: The New Strategy in Iraq: Uncertain Progress Towards an Unknown Goal

...Just as the British confused Basra with a regional center of gravity, the Bush Administration may well have compounded these problems by confusing Baghdad with the center of gravity in a national struggle for the control of political and economic space that affects every part of the country. The Iraq Study Group report had many weaknesses, but it was all too correct in nothing that official US reporting on the patterns of violence in Iraq may reflect less than a 10th of the actual struggle, and much of this violence is outside Baghdad.

Winning security control of the city and losing Iraq’s 11 other major cities and
countryside to Iraq’s sectarian and ethnic factions is not victory in any strategic sense, it is defeat. As has been discussed earlier, the minimal requirement for a successful US strategy is a relatively stable and secure Iraq, not temporary US military control of Baghdad....