Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran’s murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops….

Just like Murtha the other week trying to take credit for Rush’s ebay slapdown.

The Dems have no shame, by next year they will be saying the killing of citizens were their idea, it finished the war early. Unfortunately the Republicans killed the wrong civilians, the Dems would have targeted the bad ones. We only killed the woman and children.

Because Donald Rumsfeld was dead-set against it.

Just to clarify: He was opposed to the current strategy of “clear, hold and build”, not to a surge per se — though without the new strategy, a surge in troops was arguably academic.

The plan he clung to until the bitter end, long past the time its failures were evident, was the “light footprint” plan.

I’d like to ask a question and I am serious. Why didn’t we try a surge earlier?

thuja on November 7, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Because Donald Rumsfeld was dead-set against it.

In one of the oddest twists of fate imaginable on the issue, Rumsfeld’s position coincided more closely with Democrats than with most of us here on HotAir. That we generally overlooked it is due IMHO to our bifurcated reporting in this day and age, with the MSM on the one side and the “right-wing” media on the other, each with a critical blind spot.

The MSM was too busy bashing Rumsfeld on almost every topic imaginable to notice that he was doing their bidding, turning over control to the Iraqis over the objections of our fighting men on the scene; the alternative media was too busy defending Rumsfeld to call him on it, or to acknowledge that those most opposed to Rumsfeld’s approach were those who wanted to stay and fight, not those who were anxious to leave.

Again, my two cents. I’m happy to be refuted and/or proven wrong.

Al Qaeda believes, and has admitted that if they can hit us hard enough we will be forced to withdraw all of our troops from everywhere around the world in order to protect/react here in the homeland. What makes anyone think Saddam or Iran didn’t/doesn’t believe the same, or at least that our war planners had to consider this in their planning.

We have a massive nation to protect – it isn’t like we could just throw everything into one small nation and forget the rest.

But it does score political points – the only meaningful strategic focus of the left.
DKK

major john on November 7, 2007 at 2:18 PM

I should have been more clear in my post, instead of implying that there was no long term strategy. I apologize, obviously there was long term planning done. None of my frustration rests on the military side of the planning either. My frustration lies with the civil side doing too much of their planning based off of the assumptions you spoke of. It seems to me that those assumptions were taken as fact, meaning that the Iraqis would stand up for their newfound democracy right away. It doesn’t seem that a lot of effort was put into figuring out what to do if they didn’t.

I may be wrong, and if I am I’ll stand down.

Good luck with your mission and stay safe, sir.

You are not wrong re: Bremer – but it was more a formality than an actual large change.

Thanks for the kind words – I have almost always tried to stay safe!

Many thanks for your service. I am greatly encouraged by the great news lately. I hope all those “purple thumbs” get what they risked their lives for.

Be safe.

Also, in hindsight, probably a big mistake to fire the whole Iraqi army without pay back in 2003, instead of trying to maintain it with pay while vetting, retraining, etc. Again, 20/20.

fred, the IA fired itself in 2003. The conscripts melted away, the Ba’athist officers became insurgents. There was no army to keep around. Also, not really a good idea to keep people you have just thrashed on the battlefield organized and such – we would have had to have the entire OIF force become jail warders around their bases.

It’s too bad there wasn’t a long term strategy in place at the start of the war – had there been you might not have to ask your question.

I am so bone weary of that “no plan” canard, I can hardly type this comment right now.

TO all the J-3 and J-5 wannabes – of course we had a long range plan – but it rested on the not irrational assumption that Iraqi civil society would be stronger and more resilient than it proved to be. We assumed the Iraqis would be people like the Czechs, Poles, East Germans, etc. They would rejoice in their freedom, and strive to uphold it right away. However, what we found was more like what has turned out in Belorussia, Uzbekistan and Tajikstan. People that had been beaten down so hard, it took longer than anticipated to lift themselves up and fight for their new found liberties. (We are still waiting for the Uzbeks, Tajiks and Belorussians, unfortunately – I had rather hoped they would be more “Ukrainian” in their resolve).

Tomorrow, I will start on my small part in helping the Iraqis keep that which they have been given.

I’d like to ask a question and I am serious. Why didn’t we try a surge earlier?

thuja on November 7, 2007 at 10:52 AM

and similar posts. It is not just the “surge” that’s working.

I’m no expert, but what I understand is that there are at least three factors: 1. Anbar Sunni tribes getting fed up with Al Quada brutality almost a year ago, and with local/regional US military cooperation, started local, tribal controlled security forces. This is now a model for other areas; 2. New strategy started early this year to have joint US/Iraq forces in lots of neighborhood “police stations” with lots of personal contact with civilians; 3. a surge of additional troops to implement the new strategy.

It has not been just throwing more troops into the same old strategy – it’s more troops with a new strategy. I cringe when I hear the “pro-surge” administration and Congressional proponents not mention the new strategy aspect.

My last 2 cents: for thousands of years tribes ruled the lands that are now Iraq. The only central government known to most Iraqis was the recent brutal one. In hindsight it seems obvious to build on and extend upwards the traditional tribal government instead of forcing an unnatural strong central government on the people. Also, in hindsight, probably a big mistake to fire the whole Iraqi army without pay back in 2003, instead of trying to maintain it with pay while vetting, retraining, etc. Again, 20/20.

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….

They’ll just claim “they forced Bush to revise his failed Iraq plan, and it worked“.

49% are gullible enough to swallow anything.

Ask the intern.

profitsbeard on November 7, 2007 at 11:39 AM

That’s my big worry. They’ll go from betting against theit own side (and getting a majority of the people to vote for them in the process) to taking credit for the surge with just a little bit of political spin.

As the belt areas are finally cleared, plus having local neighborhood watch people available, I fully expect to see by early next year movement of a large contingent of Iraq Army into the worst areas still in Baghdad where by recognition of who doesn’t belong there better than we can and tips flowing in from the locals that major changes will happen to root out the bad guys causing issues and raising the hopes of the locals.

I’d like to ask a question and I am serious. Why didn’t we try a surge earlier?

thuja on November 7, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Good question. CommentGuy is right that a number of factors are contributing to the success of the surge. I’m not sure if a similar boost in forces would have worked if we had tried it a year earlier. It’s too bad there wasn’t a long term strategy in place at the start of the war – had there been you might not have to ask your question.

Just be glad the current strategy is working and we are making serious progress, and hope/pray that we continue to do so.

Not a simple question to answer, partially politics, but the success of the surge is a combination of things.

Not just troop numbers but a new strategy along with it which is even more important, add to that timing where the Iraq people had finally gotten fed up with AQ targeting them as soft targets and fighting back and ratting them out. Also important was the number of trained Iraq Army and Police so that combined with our numbers we were able to clear and hold rather than just react. Each day the numbers grow as more locals are trained. Also they are suffering lower losses just like we are and thus the net number is growing even faster.

With pushing the AQ to areas that don’t support them they can’t hide and they are being increasingly outnumbered each day.

49% are gullible enough to swallow anything.

Ask the intern.

I’d like to ask a question and I am serious. Why didn’t we try a surge earlier?

thuja on November 7, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Ummm, I dont know, maybe because the defeatocrats were trying their damnedest to to undercut any and all strategy’s and surrender to anyone or thing they could, kind of like Saddams armies in the first gulf war?