Comments on: One more big push

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 01:02:31 +0000

“…certainly trying to do too little with too few has been a big part of the debacle to date.”
Not to mention the fact that Bush could have done this “last big push” long before now, but when Dems come to town, only then doest war became a political hot potato for Bush, not that it hasn’t alwasy been political for Bush, SO ONLY NOW does Bush want to “add more troops.”
HOW long have generals and congressman been telling Bush to add more troops? You don’t lose control of the congress and add troops as a political after-thought. Its as if Bush decided, “well, maybe I should do something now that I run out of options?”
For little Bushie, it’s far to late to suddenly decide to get off his lazy duff and do something. This is REALLY how 9/11 happened, this why it took so long for Bush to react to Katrina, and now Bush wants to “add more troops to Iraq”.
Bush waited until he could not do otherwise, but make up so “big push” crap. Bush waited far to late to finally take some kind of action. It’s the story of whole Bush administration.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 00:14:34 +0000

General French? That seems unfair.
“French remained in command as major trenching began and oversaw the fighting at Neuve Chapelle and Ypres that finally destroyed the last of the original BEF. In 1915, he declined to co-operate with the French and after the failures at Aubers Ridge and, at Loos, the British offensive operations were almost halted. In December 1915, he was replaced by Douglas Haig.”
French despaired of success using the given tactics; Haig, never.

By: BroD

BroD — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:22:23 +0000

Tillman Fan, I think it’s more likely that an increase in troop strength would result in an increase in casualties with any “security in numbers” effect offset by broader exposure.

By: Liz

Liz — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 03:48:55 +0000

Is this an known known, an known unknown, or an unknown unknown? Just asking.

By: Tillman Fan

Tillman Fan — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 01:28:44 +0000

It’s not only WWI that gives us the lesson you mention. I’m only part-way through Robert McNamara’s “In Retrospect,” about how the US blundered into the Vietnam War, but still the stories about US strategy and the lessons learned are eerily applicable to Iraq. (McNamara wrote the book in the mid-1990s, so it wasn’t done with Iraq in mind at all.)
In any event, it seems to me that the “big push” will simply be an opportunity to get the casualties down to an acceptable level, at least temporarily, at which point we take credit for stabilizing the country and leave. My guess is that after we leave all hell will break loose.

By: Tom Gowen

Tom Gowen — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:58:54 +0000

Perhaps this is a point that should be explored and emphatically pushed before McCain can run for President saying if they had only put a couple hundred thousand more American troops on the ground like I recommneded, we would have avoided this disaster. Indeed what is it that a couple hundred thousand more troops would attack? Isn’t it true that our military has not been particularly trained to be a police force. What else would they be doing?

By: BroD

BroD — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:49:22 +0000

“It’s not clear, I have to note, what these extra divisions will actually do…”
That’s pretty much the point isn’t it? The fact that the troop boost number preceded any mention of a plan says it all. It’s magical thinking–like stepping on the gas harder when youre stuck in the mud.