President Bush’s speech may be scheduled for tonight, but the troop surge in Iraq is already under way.
ABC News has learned that the “surge” Bush is expected to announce in a prime time speech tonight has already begun. Ninety advance troops from the 82nd Airborne Division arrived in Baghdad today.
An additional battalion of roughly 800 troops from the same division are expected to arrive in Baghdad Thursday.
h/t reader Michael, who writes “The Democrats will be exploding in 3, 2, 1….”
This war totally rocks.
What? I thought things were going well in Iraq. Bush must be getting his military intelligence from the MSM.
crabby sez: “This war totally rocks.”
That’s what Paul Martin and a lot of Liberals think too:
About Martin on Iraq
13 December 2005
OTTAWA – While Liberal Leader Paul Martin continues to obfuscate his position on Iraq, here are some interesting comments from others on what Martin’s original position on Iraq was.
* “There is no doubt in my mind that if Paul Martin had been the leader, we would have gone to Iraq with the United States.�? – Former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps (Worth Fighting For, 2004, pp. 182)
* “When the Liberal government had to make a decision on Iraq, Mr. Martin did not speak. Those of us on the inside knew that he had been working very hard to get Prime Minister Chrétien to join the Americans in the war.�? – Former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps (Worth Fighting For, 2004, pp. 211)
* “Prime Minister Martin said that he was thinking of putting troops into Iraq to help train Iraqi security forces. The very first person to raise objections was Stephen Harper. The Prime Minister ended up beating a hasty retreat and said that the Canadian military trainers would only do their job outside of Iraq.�? – Former U.S. Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci (Unquiet Diplomacy, 2005, pg. 165)
* “I think we made the wrong decision in not supporting them, and we’re obviously encountering the fallout from that in terms of various aspects of Canadian-American relations, which is not healthy.�? – Former Liberal Defense Minister under Paul Martin, David Pratt, (Hansard, March 29, 2003)
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2459/35145
“The Democrats will be exploding in 3, 2, 1….”
Well thats better than having your troops exploding.
Pres. Bush knows that he has two years left, so taking the decision now sets them up for a better effort in 2008.
Secondly, when fighting a war the president doesn’t have to go to Congress for troop deployments. Pres. Bush is basically saying that they are going to fight to win.
The Rumsfeld winning the war in three weeks, was relatively straight forward. Securing the peace, was the missing part of the plan.
20,000 additional troops, versus a total insurgency of about 10-12000 one should be able to predict the outcome reasonably well. It will likely be a pain, as this will be the house to house rousting of insurgents. Tiresome but necessary, because Al Qaeda is not coming out into the conventional battlefield as this would be certain doom. Expect more “Saddam spider hole” operations and arms cache ‘seek and destroy’ missions.
The Navy and Marines are getting lined up as well.
“ The USS John C. Stennis strike group is heading for the Persian Gulf with a mighty air arm of 9-10 fighter-bomber squadrons. Saturday, some sources reported that another task force, the USS Ronald Reagan Strike Group, had been ordered out of Sand Diego on Jan. 4 and was heading in the same direction. —- the Stennis strike group will this month join the USS Dwight Eisenhower aircraft carrier group and USS Boxer strike force in the Persian –
Deployment of the Stennis group puts a total of 16,000 US sailors in the region as well as another nuclear carrier and 7 escort warships, 10 air squadrons, 2 submarines and helicopters to support amphibious landings on enemy soil.”
Thanks to the Democrats and MSM for helping the President go forward.
“President Bush’s willingness to go all the way in Iraq, –is prompted by a simple line of reasoning. If it ends in victory, he will end his presidency on a high note and be able to boast that American doggedness and courage prevailed over the enemy in the long haul. If it fails Bush will be in exactly the same position as he is today, namely, heading for the history books as the American president who lost the Iraq war and the struggle against terror. “
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1247
saw the Stennis and the Nimitz in SanDeigo harbour about 4 years ago.
two “war in a box” size ships, from almost 1 mile distance they kept the tour ships at bay you could see the ants loading the aircraft in.
each one would carry more firepower than the entire Canajun navy.
Further to the Debka file by Cal:
“Using his powers as commander in chief, he continues to bolster the Iraqi front with another key appointment: Lt. Gen. David Petraeus will succeed Gen. George Casey in command of American forces in Iraq. Petraeus commanded the 101st Airborne, the Screaming Eagles, in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Its motto, Rendezvous with Destiny, fits the US president’s present frame of mind.”
Pussyfooting is not what Pres. Bush has in mind. Al Qaeda and company will be getting a few surprises, as the recent action in Somalia indicated.
Damn I hope they build the pipeline.. I’m tired of expensive gas.
Hans: “able to predict the outcome reasonably well”
Conventional wisdom is that, to overcome an insurgency, a conventional army requires 10 fighters for each guerrilla. How many of the 140,000 or so Americans in Iraq are actually available for combat, and how many are involved in security and support? Roughly half and half, I should bet. 20,000 sounds woefully short of what would be needed to allow the U.S. to pacify Baghdad and get out in good order.
Zog:
When adding 4000 additional Marines, these would be considered quality first line fighters. Further full wind up in about 90 days.
Complement of additional infantry units is at the moment unclear.
Hardly, the kind of guys who shuffle papers for coffee cup requisitions.
Or is this the runup to the end of Iran’s nuke program?
Hans:
“Pres. Bush is basically saying that they are going to fight to win.”
I thought they did win. What was that about “Mission Accomplished!!”
“20,000 additional troops, versus a total insurgency of about 10-12000 one should be able to predict the outcome reasonably well.”
Give me a break. They’ve had over 100,000 troops there for the last three years. And…??? If they were sending 200,000 troops then perhaps you could predict the outcome. It looks more like Bush’s strategy is to leave the next US leader/government with a poison pill.
Iberia:
Yes, the US did win the conventional operation against Iraq. In case you missed it, Saddam Hussein has been reportedly hung.
Are you saying Saddam won?
What the US failed to do was secure the peace by having enough security forces to mop up the thousands of weapons dumps Saddam had; which have provided ample materiel to construct countless IEDs.
Now that the insurgents are well supplied means using combat troops rather than security personnel because Rumsfeld made the operation “Gulf War Lite”.
I gather you have not been paying attention as in 2003 they missed securing some 350 metric tonnes of HDX and RDX explosives at the Al-Quaqaa weapons dump. Only one pound knocked Pan Am flight 103 out of the sky over Lockerbie. Reportedly HDX/RDX is useful in constructing nuclear weapons for implosion purposes to achieve critical mass and detonation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3950493.stm
You really need to keep up with your readings.
That little oversight is now going to be “corrected”. Al-Qaeda is now going to be drawn out to ‘come and play’.
Of course the US wouldn’t be playing house to house combat if they had secured this stuff and choked off the border supply points from Iran/Syria.
The plan is simple enough, choke off the weapons supply and the insurgency for effective purposes ceases to be a factor. Only Al Qaeda supporters and sympathizers will be grumbling. But then without arms, they can spout all the propaganda they want.
They’ve had over 100,000 troops there for the last three years. And…???
And, they weren’t enough. Simple answer. It’s now going to be rectified. Simple solution.
There are very few military campaigns that I’m aware of where everything went perfectly as planned.
We did win the military war against Saddam in Iraq. It’s been over for years. We are fighting an insurgency in Iraq now provisioned by Syria and Iran, an extension of the WOT. Are you seriously suggesting given the scope and the players in the WOT that the US should have it wrapped up by now?
Bob – Do you think in hindsight that we should have joined the US going into Iraq? I don’t have a clear idea from your post what your own position is. I personally thought the situation didn’t warrant the action, but others may disagree (understatement?).
Kate – Did something happen to the Y2Kyoto thread comments? It looks like they all got lost in the course of the late afternoon update somehow. Even now there’s no comment area attached to the post.
Not to diminish the sacrifices already made, but take a look at this graph from Big Lizard http://biglizards.net/Graphics/ForegroundPix/WarDeadComparison.gif
Hope this makes it past the filter.
Amazing. Everyone’s been wondering about the buildup in the gulf for the last few months. There’s been all sorts of theories about the purpose of those carrier groups, from the possibility that they were there to support Israeli operations, to a full-out invasion of Iran. In all that time, I didn’t hear anyone suggest that maybe they were there to re-enforce the US troops already in Iraq. Yet it seems like that may have been exactly what the president had in mind. If so, he must have been planning this “surprise re-enforcement” for anywhere between 6 months and a year, yet has managed to not leak any word of the plan, and has slipped by everyone’s second guessing. Either the whole thing is just coincidence, or everyone has seriously underestimated George W. Bush.
From here on, watch for the speed of the deployment. If they can move a sufficient number of troops into the country in a short period of time, they’ll be able to catch the insurgency relatively off guard. Some people may think of the insurgents as a bunch of incompetent peasants, but they can be quite intelligent, and they definitely learn from experience. During the last 4 years, they’ve a chance to learn all about the abilities and limitations of the US forces on the ground, and have adapted their strategy accordingly. 20,000 new soldiers being added into the mix over the course of a week or two has the potential to throw all their planning into total chaos. My bet is that this is what the US forces are hoping for. Catch them with their pants down, tear apart their organizational structure, secure the vital areas of the country, and then leave the ING to hold those positions while US and (some) ING forces sweep the smaller towns. It all depends on speed though – if the deployment goes slow, it’ll be a totally different strategy.
GOD BLESS GEORGE BUSH
One hopes Bush will allow the troops to fight without the current rules of engagement. If he wants to fight a war let us win it. As for the dhimmiecrats I am sure they are looking for ways to sell out the nation again.
Thomas, you can count on the Dhimmiecrats for that. It’s what they do best.
Timothy Coderre said…
“GOD BLESS GEORGE BUSH”
Not a bad idea. Certainly nobody else will.
Hans:
Sure, Saddam’s army was defeated and Saddam ia dead. But the insurgency is alive and well.
Given the lack of foresight shown by the US political and military leadership, I seriously doubt that this plan for 20,000 more troops will will change things.
penny:
You contradict yourself. First you say the problem with Iraq is simple:
“And, they weren’t enough. Simple answer. It’s now going to be rectified. Simple solution.”
Then you say it’s complex:
“Are you seriously suggesting given the scope and the players in the WOT that the US should have it wrapped up by now?”
Without even going into whether or not invading Iraq was the right decision, what I am suggesting is that other than the US military’s awesome display of technical superiority, the whole “plan” for the Iraq adventure was too simplistic and that’s why Iraq is now a fiasco.
Bush and the Republicans have been running this show right from the start (not the Democrats, MSM, socialists, liberals, Liberals, NDP, unions, Natives or any other group that so frequently gets blamed here for all of the world’s ills)…Bush and the Republicans should take full credit for whatever the outcome.
Iberia:
Well given that it appears the majority of the troop enhancements will be front line fighters I would doubt the veracity of the statement that it will make no difference.
While one may agree that there have been errors made in Iraq; it is quite another to assert that those errors are irrevocable or beyond redemption.
Furthermore, the proposition that one simply ‘cut and run’ after having spent some 3000 lives and God knows how much from the treasury, to hand Iraq over to a bunch of thugs and goons little better than Saddam would be a greater travesty than the one that has already occurred.
One can debate the wisdom of having started the venture, but once in, one has an obligation to finish the project one has started. To leave off would prove a greater farce and folly.
“War is not ‘the best way of settling differences; it is the only way of preventing their being settled for you.” GK Chesterton
Iberia:
Well given that it appears the majority of the troop enhancements will be front line fighters I would doubt the veracity of the statement that it will make no difference.
While one may agree that there have been errors made in Iraq; it is quite another to assert that those errors are irrevocable or beyond redemption.
Furthermore, the proposition that one simply ‘cut and run’ after having spent some 3000 lives and God knows how much from the treasury, to hand Iraq over to a bunch of thugs and goons little better than Saddam would be a greater travesty than the one that has already occurred.
One can debate the wisdom of having started the venture, but once in, one has an obligation to finish the project one has started. To leave off would prove a greater farce and folly.
“War is not ‘the best way of settling differences; it is the only way of preventing their being settled for you.” GK Chesterton
US forces raid Iran official office in Iraq – TVs
Reuters (excerpt) ^ | January 11, 2007
Posted on 01/11/2007 12:50:03 AM PST by HAL9000
ARBIL, Iraq, Jan 11 (Reuters) – U.S. forces raided an Iranian government representative’s office in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil early on Thursday and made a number of arrests, Iraq’s state television and a Kurdish station reported.
There was no immediate comment on the reports of a U.S. raid in Arbil from the American military.
Does anyone else remember all of the laughter that Saddam Hussein elicited in 2003 when he said something along the lines of “you’ll know when we’re fighting”?
I’m really glad I’m not there.
Please tell me someone recorded this.
CBC News 6:05 a.m. Pacific Time: Talking head Washington correspondent debunked the myth that there was a bloodbath after the US withdrew from Vietnam.
This is outrageous. He just said that, yes, there were some arerests but certainly no “bath of blood.”
Gee, I though Pol Pot in Cambodia was a direct result of the US withdrawal.
Hans:
My point is that I’d be less doubtful of the results if 200,000 troops were being sent in instead of just 20,000.
As for “cut and run” vs. “stay the course”, neither one appears to be a good option. Some really creative thinking will be necessary to salvage this affair.
“The Democrats will be exploding in 3, 2, 1….”
Not really, politicaly this is a goldmine for them. All they’re doing is putting Shrub’s feet to the fire while he slowly hangs himself.
“Either the whole thing is just coincidence, or everyone has seriously underestimated George W. Bush.”
Well I suppose there’s a first time for everything.
Personaly I hope for Iraq’s sake the escalation suceeds but I suspect it will fail. Only the true believers have any faith left in Bush’s leadership. He’s consistently demonstrated himself to be incompetent in matters of state in my view.
“CBC News 6:05 a.m. Pacific Time: Talking head Washington correspondent debunked the myth that there was a bloodbath after the US withdrew from Vietnam.”
sarge here. vietnam is not cambodia. the blood bath in cambodia a result of US bombing and invading cambodia and weakening of civil governmnt there.
one is sure there were some killing done to south viet govenrmnt officials and army officers and other US collaberators, but apples to oranges since the civil war in vietnam ended shortly after we left with communist victory. it will be getting into full swing as we leave iraq this time, with no probably victory in sight, and the two sides being devided on religous/ethnic rather than political grounds-killing all of the enemy will be how victory is sought by either side with massive ethnic cleansing. it will be a blood bath sarge thinks, but will be a blood bath no matter what happens, and is already a blood bath. sarge hates to say he told ya so, but everyone with half a brain knew that removing iraq’s own tito would cause a blood bath. sadam was the glue that held the balkanised iraq together, for better or worse. sarge dont mind tellin ya sarge sees blood on all of yer hands for supporting this catastrophy sarge is tempted to ask why y’all hated america so much?
Sarge, a friendly suggestion. When referring to yourself use first person.
Ya ya Sarge. BLA BLA BLA You had better start praying that things get under control in Iraq. Otherwise, the emboldened Islamic radicals will be over here finding out that Canada is a pretty soft target as well as the US and another big attack on the US would devastate the US economy and just guess where that would leave Canada. As it is , the Democratic controlled Congress is MUCH more protectionist than the Republicans and we can expect that issue to be on the rise in the coming years. George Bush has been good for the US and good for Canada so maybe you want to think about an attitude adjustment. After doing all the damage they could the Libranos like Chretien who insulted and opposed the US and in particular George Bush have left the country to set up shop in China where I am sure they will be most comfortable. Hopefully the French Star will follow.
I thought they did win. What was that about “Mission Accomplished!!”
The mission was accomplished. The regime was changed. The mess that has occured since then has more to do with intratribal conflicts that the US never had much chance of mending.
Given the lack of foresight shown by the US political and military leadership, I seriously doubt that this plan for 20,000 more troops will will change things.
The best thing they could have done after the invasion was shoot looters in the street and carpet bomb insurgent strongholds. They made the decision to appease the MSM, Europeans and Democrats instead. Somehow I doubt you would have argued for that, but now we see the result of fighting savages with kid gloves on.
It looks more like Bush’s strategy is to leave the next US leader/government with a poison pill.
Do you really believe that? Whatever one thinks about the strategy, this sounds like moonbat ravings to me.
Do you think in hindsight that we should have joined the US going into Iraq?
Frankly the US never expected nor wanted any “military” help from us. However we should have given them moral support at least, which would have not only been the right thing to do but would have made them happy. Chretien made the opposite decision at the last minute because of a Quebec byelection.
Iberia:
It appears your assessment for more troops is being heard.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/11/america/web.0111troops.php
White House pushing hard on Iraq plan
By David Stout
Published: January 11, 2007
WASHINGTON: President George W. Bush’s top aides pushed hard today for Mr. Bush’s Iraq strategy and unveiled plans to add 92,000 soldiers and marines to the overall strength of the United States military and help Iraqis far beyond Baghdad’s borders.
The addition of 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 to the Marine Corps, to be accomplished over five years, was announced by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates the morning after Mr. Bush told the American people that about 20,000 more troops are being sent to Iraq.
From Bush’s speech:
“Eighty percent of Iraq’s sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital.”
Two questions:
1) Now what could it be that is attracting violence to a 30 mile radius of Baghdad? One would almost think that some occupying force was attracting resistance fighters.
2) So if the rest of Iraq is relatively peaceful, doesn’t that imply that without the catalyst of the US military in Baghdad, that Iraq would not degrade into a civil war … otherwise why isn’t there already a (several?) civil war(s) in going on in other areas of Iraq where there is no US military “standing in the way of chaos”?
The real reason the US military is in Iraq is so US oil corporations can have the US tax payer foot the bill for their security while they steal Iraqi resources.
randall:
“The mission was accomplished. The regime was changed.”
Funny how the definition of “the mission” morphed over the years. And I thought it was about WMD, eliminating Iraqi ties to terrorism and bringing democracy to Iraq.
“They made the decision to appease the MSM…”
No. They made the decision to go in without a well thought out plan. Now they want to blame everyone else for their stupidity.
“1) Now what could it be that is attracting violence to a 30 mile radius of Baghdad? One would almost think that some occupying force was attracting resistance fighters.”
One might think that, but one would be wrong. There’s the little matter of population density, access to goods and services, media exposure, and politics. Setting off an IED in a village of 20 people, with nobody around to see it and no media to document it, is rather pointless. It’s the equivalent of someone blowing up a moose in the forest in northern Saskatchewan. Blowing up something in downtown Toronto on the other hand would have a much bigger impact, eh?
“2) So if the rest of Iraq is relatively peaceful, doesn’t that imply that without the catalyst of the US military in Baghdad, that Iraq would not degrade into a civil war”
No. Partially because of the above explanation, and partially because many of the various smaller villages are all kept “peaceful” by different militias.
I don’t think 20,000 is nearly enough. Didn’t they have about 160,000 troops in Iraq at the end of 2005. Now they have 132,000, correct? Even adding 21,000 still brings you well below previous levels. On top of that Britain is pulling troops out. Is this not correct?
Les
21,000 more U.S. troops may very well be enough to bring the most violent area of Iraq under control. The U.S. won’t be doing the job alone and there’s quite a growing contingent of thousands of new Iraqi forces that will be taking over the job over the next 24 months.
Ultimately that’s what’s needed to win the war – Iraq’s democratic government developing it’s own forces to effectively resist and engage the insurgency until the various movements fizzle.
With the back of the Iraqi government up against the wall I think they’ll do it.
So basically you’re saying that the U.S. is depending on Iraqi troops to do it.!!
I think the U.S. needs between 100,000 and 200,000 troops to even get a handle on this.
Les
“So basically you’re saying that the U.S. is depending on Iraqi troops to do it.!!”
You got it. The US won the war ages ago. They’ve spent the last 3 years helping Iraqis rebuild and train an army. Now it’s time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their own nation. The US will start off the effort and help direct it, but this is an opportunity for the ING to show what they’re made of. We can’t babysit them forever.