Bush will likely increase troop levels, it now seems. The LA Times is appropriately calling it a "double down" strategy. As I said earlier on this blog, this is the last card Bush has to play, and the only policy Dems will have a hard time criticizing until its 'failure' is evident, which will not be immediate. Numbers from 10,000 to 40,000 are being talked about. Indeed, a much higher number of troops may give a period of relative calm in early 2007 to boost Bush's popularity, before things fall apart again in the runup to the 2008 election, by which time he can chant cut-and-run again. I suspect, however, that an increase as small as 10 or 20,000 will do nothing to change the situation even in the short term.
This is so reminiscent of Vietnam. Have we learend nothing? It is also a massive rebuke of Rumsfeld, who would never have agreed to increase troop levels.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
I called it (sadly)
Posted by The Law Talking Guy at 10:08 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Kissenger must be telling Bush about how well the Christmas Bombings worked.
Of course in Vietnam the enemy was (largely) a foreign government (N. Vietnam). That is not neccessarily the case in Iraq.
More worrying we hear today that the Saudi government has informed VP Dick "He looked like a bird to me" Cheney that if the US pulls out of Iraq they will "intervene agressively" in support of the Sunis.
I think it's time for us to start considering what the implications of a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran would be...what if they fought it out using proxies in Iraq? What if they actually went after each other?
// posted by RBR
This will get very uguly very fast and we will be no more than clay ducks at the state fair.
I am beginning to wonder how relevant we even are now. Seems like a crisis that is resembling WWIII- an opportunity for a big Middle East dogpile. Goody. Just what the neo-con Jesus freaks wanted. Bring on the rapture.
// posted by USWest
The Joint Chiefs have come out against troop increases. That will probably put a stop to it.
// posted by LTG
The LA Times is appropriately calling it a "double down" strategy.
No, it's not appropriate at all. Doubling down is when you are in a good position and you want to increase your expected value of the wager. We are not in a good position. I think people are confusing "double down" with "double or nothing", which is more like it.
The Joint Chiefs have come out against troop increases. That will probably put a stop to it.
You're joking, right? Bush is in a position where he pretty much has to do something. He doesn't want to follow the ISG recommendations because it will "lead to defeat". This is all he has left. I think it's about 50/50 whether this troop increase comes to pass.
// posted by Bell Curve
I think Bell Curve is right on this one. Bush is going "stay the course" until he's actually removed from office or forced somehow to change strategy.
// posted by RBR
BBC.news.com is reporting that the Saudi's are going to purchase 72 of the new "Eurofighters" from BAE. This suplements 195 F-15s, 120 Tornados, and 110 F-5s that the Saudi's already have. Here is the wikipedia article on the Saudi Airforce. The Saudis also have state of the art air traffic control capability in the form about a dozen AWACs. That could prove decisive against the archaic Iranian force.
The Iranian Airforce is of comperable size but is built around an aging fleet of pre-revolution US aircraft including F-4s, F-5s and F-14s. US aircraft parts embargo has been in place since 1979 so guess how reliable these aircraft are (both military and civilian airplane crashes are unusually common in Iran). Also, in the first Gulf War much of the Iraqi airforce defected en masse to Iran and Iran has never returned that now aging fleet of Russian built Iraqi planes. However, I think we can count on Russia to have at least have supplied the Iranians with parts for those. Wikipedia has some rumors about Iranian built planes based on reverse engineering of US and Russian planes but it warns that the information may not meet wikipedia's quality standards (I didn't know they had any).
Don't forget that the UAE also has a small but modern airforce built around Mirage 2000s and F-16s. Also Kuwait has a small airforce built around a few dozen F-18s.
I think this adds up to a conclusion that the Saudi's (and their Gulf State alies) could probably establish air supremacy over the Gulf and Iraq if it came to that. And that even without US participation.
// posted by RBR
Well, "double down" is a "double or nothing"b bet, so I've got no problem with that term. The difference is that "double or nothing" is usually said after losing once, while "double down" is before the first play.
I'm not kidding, Bell Curve. If the Joint Chiefs come out against troop increases, that is the political cover Democrats need to really oppose the president. And for the President himself to back down from the idea.
// posted by LTG
Today's news had an announcement by the Commonder in Iraq that he wants more troops and wants additional troops every year.
// posted by RBR
So is the idea to get Iraq "stable" for a moment, declare victory, leave, and wash our hands when it collapses a few months later? Just like Vietnam? What a terrible waste of US lives just to save face.
// posted by LTG
Yes, I think the Kissenger finger prints on Bush's strategizing are very prominent.
// posted by RBR
The generals in Iraq have been saying for some time that no new troops are necessary or even desirable. I do not think it too much of a stretch to assume they did so, at least in part, because Bush and Rumsfeld asked them to say this... to ward off criticism from many that more troops were needed. If Bush changes his mind now, his generals will have to eat their words--or more likely, Bush will find new generals to replace the used-up yes-men.
Post a Comment