The Surge

I'm curious about where Orgahs stand on the whole "surge" issue. Do you believe adding 20k troops will help? Hurt? Create conditions for victory?

If you believe the Surge is a good idea, please expand on your notion of how it will work.

If you believe the Surge is a bad idea, please propose alternatives.

Just to get things rolling, here's an analysis of the Surge from my favorite blogger:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'm sure some advocates of a two-year permanent surge with sufficient troops to make it work are completely sincere. Their position is respectable, if somewhat unpersuasive. Their laudable goal now is simply to prevent a completely failed state in the Middle East. I'm not so sure, however, about the president's motives. I don't believe he's ever been serious about the war in Iraq - because he has never committed sufficient resources to match his rhetoric, and took his eye off the ball in the critical period in 2004 and 2005. In the end, you observe what a man does, not what he says. And everything Bush has actually done (forget the highfalutin rhetoric) is to telegraph a clear message: Iraq is not that big a deal; my ego comes before candor; as president, I can do what I want anyway. We will soon be faced with an excruciating choice between what looks like another half-measure and trying to make the best of a swift exit via Kurdistan. Under both scenarios, we will have the current president, who is obviously incapable of the kind of deft diplomacy and military focus that we desperately need in either case.

The choice, then, is pretty simple. Should we give the president another chance: six months, say, and see where we are? At least then we will not have to endure the taunts from those who'll declare the Democrats lost the Iraq war, or the predictable stab-in-the-back chorus (take it away, Sean Hannity!) At the same time, isn't it basically immoral to send young Americans to die for a piece of political cover that no one seriously believes can work? Isn't it immoral to ask young Americans to perish in brutal street-fighting so that we won't have to endure the crowing of the stab-in-the-back right?

It now looks possible that we could have an even worse mess: the president will declare a surge, and the Democrats will refuse to pay for it, while continuing to fund the troops already enmeshed in a failed policy. Gridlock in Iraq; gridlock in Washington. The worst of all worlds. I guess we'll have to listen carefully to the president this week, and make our minds up when all the data is in.

George F. Will also chimes in on the numerical obstacles facing The Surge:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Based on experience in the Balkans, an assumption among experts is that to maintain order in a context of sectarian strife requires one competent soldier or police officer for every 50 people. For the Baghdad metropolitan area (population: 6.5 million), that means 130,000 security personnel.

There are 120,000 now, but 66,000 of them are Iraqi police, many - perhaps most - of whom are worse than incompetent. Because their allegiances are to sectarian factions, they are not responsive to legitimate central authority. They are part of the problem. Therefore even a surge of, say, 30,000 U.S. forces would leave Baghdad that many short, and could be a recipe for protracting failure.

Today, Gen. George Casey, U.S. commander in Baghdad, is in hot water with administration proponents of a "surge" because he believes what he recently told The New York Times: "The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq's security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq's problems, which are at base their problems."

Wayne White - for 26 years with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, now with the Middle East Institute - calls Baghdad "a Shiite-Sunni Stalingrad." Imagine a third nation's army operating between (and against) both German and Russian forces in Stalingrad. That might be akin to the mission of troops sent in any surge.

The idea is plain enough, if he meant though he'd send 200,000 troopers, not 20,000.

I've said for awhile now that I think more troops may have been helpful in the beginning of the occupation, but I don't see the value of it now. The Iraqis are supposed to be taking on more security responsibilities and the US less. The terrorists in Iraq are going to be a long term problem- a temporary "surge" in troops isn't very likely to end their attacks. Instead, the Iraqis need to learn how to fight them effectively on their own for victory in the long term.

I guess that puts me more or less in line with Casey.

Edit: The only possible benefit I could see is that if they can somehow clampdown hard on violence in Baghdad. Strategically, it would probably only be temporary- and a longshot at that, but it would be a major PR boon since the media seems seldom leave the city and base most of their impressions on its goings ons.

With 70-100k insurgents/terror fighters on the ground in Iraq, the numbers needed for effective suppression (10-2 ratio of okay-rated+ troops) approach 1M. Since only a small percentage of the "standard" Iraqi Police groups can be counted on in a pinch, a 20k increase (current rumored level of increase) would help, but nowhere near enough to make a definitive difference. Perhaps the small increase will keep U.S. casualties down a bit and let the "band-aid" last through the beginnings of the next administration -- a true solution it is not.

Actually Im surprised that the number one military power, that uses somewhere around 260 bn dollars on their defence budget cannot cope with the situation. How come can America not come up with a strategy and a operational plan that will actually work? It stuns me as much as it surprises me. Had been the secretary of defence or the president I would make a lot of initiatives to make the situation work, not just send another 20,000 soldiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

Actually Im surprised that the number one military power, that uses somewhere around 260 bn dollars on their defence budget cannot cope with the situation. soldiers.

---

Our military was/is meant to destroy, not occupy. We could beat the crap out of most countries, with the exception of a select few, quite quickly.

http://www.insulators.com/news/images/surge1.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

Actually Im surprised that the number one military power, that uses somewhere around 260 bn dollars on their defence budget cannot cope with the situation. How come can America not come up with a strategy and a operational plan that will actually work?

---

The answers are a lot larger than this little thread. A sample reason: Of 1,000 or so people working in the Green Zone, there are only 6 Arabic speakers (and only three are supposed to be truly fluent). This is almost four years into the war, mind you.

It's little things like this that hamstring our operation. Details, details, it's always in the details.

[edit]

Hey Crossloper:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ania/surge.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

Actually Im surprised that the number one military power, that uses somewhere around 260 bn dollars on their defence budget cannot cope with the situation. How come can America not come up with a strategy and a operational plan that will actually work? It stuns me as much as it surprises me. Had been the secretary of defence or the president I would make a lot of initiatives to make the situation work, not just send another 20,000 soldiers.

---

Sun Tzu has some words as to why we cannot overcome the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.

---

Occupying and destroying a insertion would take something the majority of the US people and the head's of state wont allow at this point in time. No occupying force has managed to win doing what we're doing now. We failed to properly subdue the population before instituting a "free democracy". We allowed it to fall into anarchy without instituting our own laws. We tryed to play the nice guy instead of doing the right thing by them. We allowed their museums to be looted, their infrastructure attacked, all the while looking on screaming look at what freedom we have brought to them.

I think 20,000 will help, but the only thing that will work is more totalitarian methods that no one here wants to see happen. Iraq wasnt screwed by the invasion, it had a good shot then, it was screwed by the soft PC croud.

In comparing the situation to HoI2, or Vicky, send them! Another 2 divisions does wonders to keep the revolt risk down...

What we need to do is put the jack boot on these people. We tried the nice approach, now we need to crush their spirit.

Seems to me that they dont want a democracy. Leave them be if thats the case. If they want a totalatarian priest/dictator then let them have one, how is it our problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

Actually Im surprised that the number one military power, that uses somewhere around 260 bn dollars on their defence budget cannot cope with the situation. How come can America not come up with a strategy and a operational plan that will actually work? It stuns me as much as it surprises me. Had been the secretary of defence or the president I would make a lot of initiatives to make the situation work, not just send another 20,000 soldiers.

---

It's not a military problem, it's a political/social one. The American military is up to just about any military task. When it's asked to do non-military work with bad political planning, it's doomed to failure in spite of its military prowess: same problem we faced in Vietnam.

Basically, Iraq's future is in Iraq's hands. America suffers from a great deal of pride in thinking we can change the world at will. Those other billions of people tend to have a pretty big effect, too, especially on their own turf. We need to accept now that we can't expect things to turn out exactly as we wish, and start figuring out what the Iraqi people really want for their country.

Ajax

Quote:

---

What we need to do is put the jack boot on these people. We tried the nice approach, now we need to crush their spirit.

---

Wow , the nice approach , I must have slept through that .
When was it ?

Good idea though , the crush their spirit approach , now when has that ever worked in anything like the medium-long term in modern times, or even as an effective short term solution .

Developing info: Brits will not match the surge. They've got some crazy idea about handing over responsibility to the locals.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Blair refuses to match US troop 'surge' in Iraq
Last updated at 16:53pm on 8th January 2007

Tony Blair will make clear this week that Britain is not going to send more troops to Iraq even if the US pushes ahead with a "surge" of 20,000 extra soldiers.

The Prime Minister will insist that the UK will stick to its own strategy of gradually handing over to the Iraqi army, as it has been doing with success in Basra and the south.

President Bush will announce a new US policy for Iraq either tomorrow or Wednesday. There are currently 140,000 US troops in Iraq, compared to 7,000 British servicemen and women. Mr Blair, in a rare distancing from White House policy, has been keen for Britain to be seen to be acting under its own initiative.

Chancellor Gordon Brown said yesterday that as Prime Minister he would conduct a foreign policy based firmly on British interests.

Quote:

---

Developing info: Brits will not match the surge. They've got some crazy idea about handing over responsibility to the locals.

---

Well fair play to Blair , at least he has the excuse that he was on holiday when the British army went in to disband the death squads in uniform and retrieve the people held there the other week so perhaps you can give him the benefit of the doubt .

Then again he wasn't on holiday the previous time when the British army went into the same base to retrieve the people held there , maybe he just forgot about that .

Perhaps its a pattern emerging , Blair just wants to forget about Iraq .


Anyhow , a nice development from the US with their new strategy (though for it to be new it would suggest that they had an old one which doesn't appear to have been the case) they are no longer going to talk of milestones , instead they will now talk of benchmarks .

It's a terrible idea.

Iraq is the new Vietnam and the "new plan" just solidifies that fate. :skull:

From where would US redeploy those 20000 troops?

Quote:

---

From where would US redeploy those 20000 troops?

---

Thats the clever part , in order to get more troops for deployment they are asking people who are no longer in the service to re-enlist .
It was just a bit of a screw up that they sent please re-enlist letters to people who were no longer in the service because they had already been killed in Iraq .:oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

From where would US redeploy those 20000 troops?

---

Here's where some troops are currently deployed overseas. Obviously, this doesn't include troops stationed in the US nor is the overseas list comprehensive(last I heard, we have troops in something like 130 countries around the world).

It's not that I think we couldn't- I'm not sure why we should. :shrug:

Thanks for the link Xiahou.But i already have pretty good source of the current deployments:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...iraq_orbat.htm

I was just intrested would they try to handle this via redeployment of current troops or organizing new ones. My personal opinon on the surge is that in the current situation i wouldnt send more troops in. I dont see that the situation on Iraq will be getting any better with the additional troops. With few more divisions when the occupation was started,who knows,in the long run if i would be American i would support withdrawal from Iraq,since there is nothing else to gain, then more casulties there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

With 70-100k insurgents/terror fighters on the ground in Iraq...

---

Hi Seamus,

Where do the above figures come from?

I'm opposed to this 'surge'. I myself also believe that initially as in two years ago two or three more divisions would have made a significant difference in establishing security and training native security forces.

The situation as it is now is not so much one of a fight against the occupiers but a fight between Iraqis (sunnis vs shias vs kurds). The best I think we can do is continue the training of security forces the Iraqi government with the current number of troops while advising policy to the Iraqi government.

Seeing as Sunnis are pissed about their being taken out of power and the Shiites are getting their revenge we need to try and clamp down on the government corruption and misuse of security forces. Iraqis will have more faith in their government when the police don't use their off duty time to act as death squads and hopefully allow people to rely on the police and not militias. As for the Sunnis a complete reconciliation with all non high ranking Baath party members would probably be good, that way those sunnis with a mind for politics will resort to political dialoge instead of violence. Instead of pretending that their government is mature and stable we should point out their flaws and see to it that they are corrected. These changes though are probably impossible to achieve now.

The 20,000 troops are really of a too little too late effort. Not enough to do what we claim they do and too late to effect the upswing in sectarian violence.

The really testing of the Iraqi government will be when the British step down from their primary role of security in the south to just supporting the local authorities this Spring. If the British pullout if you want to call it that, is for the most part successful then it might set a standard for a US pullout of Kurdistan and that in effect would give the Iraqi government the basis for self reliance which would hopefully allow them to fix their miltia problem and provide security for both Shiites and Sunnis. I know that this is a very simplistic outlook of mine but my optimism is just about finished with, yes a know it's taken a while.

20K

20,000

Twenty-thousand

A hundred companies.

500 platoons.

No matter how I break it down... it ain't enough.

I have no claim to military strategy genius. The Powell Doctrine posited that if 6:1 is required for victory, then 10:1 should be committed for the duration. Overwhelming force. Every national resource. "Go big, or stay home."

Half-assed so-called war, on-the-cheap, won't cut the mustard, I think. If a 20K 'surge' is the best we can slap together, then the military I spent most of my adult life in is broken. FUBAR'd. Irrelevant. Our presicion-honed bayonet dulled by use as a screwdriver and hammer.

I hope not.

If KukriKhan were in charge, now would be "all hands" time, every swinging (poncho) from every remote US installation worldwide swarms the place, trying to make a silk purse from this sow's ear our politico's have given us. Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Postal Inspection Service, Texas Rangers - everybody.

Anything less means we didn't mean it in the first place - which many of us suspected all along.

If Chuck Noris went with the Texas Rangers then perhaps that'd equal 20K troops.

On the serious side, you're absolutely right Kukri, these halfassed halfhearted efforts do nothing. The US should have either put everything into this or not done it at all.

America may be the King of Battle, but when it comes to doing anything serious we can't handle it.

Plus, why are those troops still stationed in Europe? I don't see any percieved threat coming from Russia for awhile.

I always knew Luxembourg was up to something:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

Plus, why are those troops still stationed in Europe? I don't see any percieved threat coming from Russia for awhile.
:

---

Funny you should say that. I talked to a buddy of mine over my winter break who is in the air force stationed in California. He works with nuclear weapons of some sort, I'm not sure the specifics. Anyways, guess where the our nukes are still "concentrated" at? You guessed it, Russia...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Funny you should say that. I talked to a buddy of mine over my winter break who is in the air force stationed in California. He works with nuclear weapons of some sort, I'm not sure the specifics. Anyways, guess where the our nukes are still "concentrated" at? You guessed it, Russia...

---

I'll bet there are a few pointed at the world's largest army.

Which would incidentally be the perfect ally in this little endeavour. The US army is superbly hi-tech; great, it'll obliterate anything that it can get to grips with. What's needed now is a whole heck of a lot of men. Not missiles.

Disbanding the world's 9th largest army, already in situ, was inconceivably foolish.

Are we talking about 20,000 additional soldiers into the Baghdad area, or just 20,000 soldiers dispersed like confetti across Iraq? Baghdad has what? Near 7 million inhabitants, 3 million at least in Sadr City. Perhaps 20,000 soldiers could help suppress the militias in Baghdad for a while, but that’s about it.

Unless of course one opts for Panzerjagers “jackboot” and goes Hulagu Khan on Baghdad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

Are we talking about 20,000 additional soldiers into the Baghdad area, or just 20,000 soldiers dispersed like confetti across Iraq? Baghdad has what? Near 7 million inhabitants, 3 million at least in Sadr City. Perhaps 20,000 soldiers could help suppress the militias in Baghdad for a while, but that’s about it.

---

As I understand it, the deployment is intended for Baghdad and some nearby troublespots.

The key to Baghdad at present is Moqtadr al-Sadr's Mehdi Army, which the US wants to deal with but Maliki is not strong enough to sanction the actions necessary - even if he wanted to, since he is more of a pawn of al-Sadr's than the US. The only possibility for dealing with the Shia militias in that part of Baghdad is to raze it to the ground - backstreet urban fighting will get a large part of that "surge" coming home in coffins.

A "Fallujah" type action is politically unacceptable. Not only for the humanitarian reasons that seem to escape some posters, but because it would completely inflame the Shia across the Middle East and endanger client governments like Saudi Arabia. Not only that, like Fallujah, it would not even work to suppress the insurgency for long.

People should remember that the US invaded on flimsy pretexts - there was not and is not a moral right to go around massacring even more thousands of civilians out of political expediency. The USA is not a totalitarian state aiming to be ranked with the worst in history. The administration has made a bad mistake, foolish even (given the advice that was available to them before the invasion) but it is not evil. Just because her leaders are unable (as yet) to be charged with war crimes, doesn't make it OK to commit them.

It is time to leave. There is nothing the US can do except lose more of its own troops and kill more civilians. Iraq is in civil war, and the US is powerless. Her power to act is limited precisely because her citizens are decent, freedom-loving people and contrary to what some of you seem to think, this is a good thing. This is why the US is looked up to by many throughout the world, why this episode and its corollaries has caused such counter-reaction - because free peoples (and many that are still unfree) actually care that the US stands for something greater than rapine, destruction and endless tribal warfare.

The civil war will play itself out one way or another - today, after 3,000 US troop deaths and 500,000 Iraqis - or next year, after another 1,000+ troop deaths and who knows how many more innocent Iraqis. Leave now and accept that this should never have been done, and never will again.

Yes, many thousands more Iraqis will die in the ensuing war but there will be no foreign invaders to exacerbate things and the knowledge will be stark that the solution is entirely and truthfully in Iraqi hands. (It's laughable to see serious people saying that Iraq's government has any power to effect change. Let alone the militias, if Maliki decided that he would listen to the advice of the Iraq Group and proposed to engage actively with Iran, do you think his solution would be countenanced for a moment?)

More troops now will provide more targets and more US deaths. In short, the assorted groups in Iraq see the occupation as the problem. Enhancing the occupation enhances the insurgency.