Bush: Escalation is the 'Only Option'

[Frodo]

He didn't actually use the E-word, but it's worth calling it for what it is -an escalation:

Bush: 'We're Going Forward';
More Troops Called The Only Iraq Option

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 15, 2007; Page A01]

Faced with substantial opposition both in Congress and among the American public to their Iraq plans, President Bush and Vice President Cheney vowed yesterday to forge ahead with the deployment of more than 21,000 additional troops.

In an interview broadcast last night on CBS's "60 Minutes," Bush said he has the authority as commander in chief to move ahead with the deployment, regardless of what the Democratic-controlled Congress does in opposition.

"In this situation, I do, yeah," Bush said. "I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I've made my decision. And we're going forward."

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said yesterday that the money is already in place to begin moving additional troops to Iraq.

"We have authority in the -- we have money in the '07 budget, which has been appropriated by the Congress, to move these troops to Iraq, and the president will be doing that," he said on ABC's "This Week."

The addition of troops in Iraq, announced by Bush last week in a nationally televised speech, is part of an administration strategy aimed at quelling the sectarian violence there and at salvaging an unpopular war effort that the president himself has said is not succeeding.

Bush said on "60 Minutes" that the only option besides boosting troop levels would be to withdraw -- a move supported by some Democrats but one he called tantamount to defeat.

[Frodo]

Thinking this over, I am increasingly convinced that President Bush would not be going forward with this initiative unless he were assured that his proposal would pass Congress -even if it meant he would have to endure their grumbling and hand-wringing. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The only option is to get a President who is at most 99.9% crazy.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Thinking this over, I am increasingly convinced that President Bush would not be going forward with this initiative unless he were assured that his proposal would pass Congress -even if it meant he would have to endure their grumbling and hand-wringing. 

Or, he knows he can ram in anything he's allowed to w/o thier approval knowing if the Democrats don't find it it's suicide for them anyway. Still, I tihnk he's doing what he thinks can help.

[minionofmidas]

This war is looking more Vietnamese by the hour.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What I find to be strange about all this, is that the size of the (admittedly small in comparison to the Americans) British force in Iraq is likely to be scaled back quite a lot this year; and that's something that's been reasonably clear for months.
What are the other countries with troops in Iraq doing over this? (and I genuinely don't know; it's not something reported on over here).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What I find to be strange about all this, is that the size of the (admittedly small in comparison to the Americans) British force in Iraq is likely to be scaled back quite a lot this year; and that's something that's been reasonably clear for months.
What are the other countries with troops in Iraq doing over this? (and I genuinely don't know; it's not something reported on over here).

Bump

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What I find to be strange about all this, is that the size of the (admittedly small in comparison to the Americans) British force in Iraq is likely to be scaled back quite a lot this year; and that's something that's been reasonably clear for months.
What are the other countries with troops in Iraq doing over this? (and I genuinely don't know; it's not something reported on over here).

Almost all of the troops are American anyways. Yes, the British pulling out troops will reduce the net effect of the escalation.

If you look at Lunaville, last month 115 out of 118 deaths were American. The coalition is a joke.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Almost all of the troops are American anyways.

I knew that o/c, I was just wondering whether the large gap in thinking on what to do next between the U.S and U.K governments is something shared by whatever countries still have their token forces in Iraq.

[JSojourner]

You know, as much as I oppose the Iraq war, I think those who support escalation are right in one sense.  If we escalate, we CAN win. 

Just like we could have won in Vietnam.  If we escalated.

Problem is, no one -- not even Little Lord Bush -- is willing to really escalate.

20,000 "new" troops is escalation, but not nearly enough to win anything.  It's just enough to give the insurgents fresh targets.

Now, if we want to pour in 500-thousand troops...or maybe 750-thousand...then we can win this thing.

But we won't.  And we shouldn't.  Because...

1.  We were wrong in the first place.
2.  We'd need to draft.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You know, as much as I oppose the Iraq war, I think those who support escalation are right in one sense.  If we escalate, we CAN win. 

Just like we could have won in Vietnam.  If we escalated.

Problem is, no one -- not even Little Lord Bush -- is willing to really escalate.

20,000 "new" troops is escalation, but not nearly enough to win anything.  It's just enough to give the insurgents fresh targets.

Now, if we want to pour in 500-thousand troops...or maybe 750-thousand...then we can win this thing.

But we won't.  And we shouldn't.  Because...

1.  We were wrong in the first place.
2.  We'd need to draft.

Well, yeah, all this does is add to the massive list of "I told you so" from the anti-war left. They said that the troops Bush was sending in weren't enough. They got totally trashed by the so called media for that.

We were right, and powers that be were wrong. Enough is enough, it's time to put liberals in charge.

[minionofmidas]

You know, as much as I oppose the Iraq war, I think those who support escalation are right in one sense.  If we escalate, we CAN win. 

Just like we could have won in Vietnam.  If we escalated.

You escalated in Vietnam. And then you escalated. And then you escalated a wee bit more. And then you really escalated.
And with every escalation, the US' position in the region became more untenable.
Remember with how little troops you started on that war?

Sorry man, you sure can write but you need to reality-check your positions from time to time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As long as it's just 20,000 (minus what the British withdraw) it's hardly an escalation - if it's not consciously marketed as one and not accompanied by more escalationist rhetoric.
But then, the true escalation lies in the rhetoric and not in the 20,000.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All you'd ensure is that Americans are hated forever and will lose all influence in the region as soon as they start pulling out again (in a sense, of course, that's been true for decades anyways). Which would be fairly quickly given the costs of that.

[opebo]

Great points Lewis Trondheim.

If your policy goal is a self destructive   one, attaining it is not a good thing.

[The Duke]

This war is looking more Vietnamese by the hour.

Except for the part where there is no equivalent for the NVA.

Not that the NVA was an improtant part of that war, though, right?  They only took Saigon is all.

[nini2287]

I see two feasible options for Iraq:

1)  Draft about 500,000 troops.  Iraq should be stable very quickly and we can move on.  Expensive and unpopular  but we can move on and would probably have the best long-term conclusion.

2)  Don't bring in any more troops and start handing over the operation to the Iraqi Security Forces.  It'd be popular and we could bring the troops home quickly but for the long-term it would probably lead to greater instability in the Middle East.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

but for the long-term it would probably lead to greater instability in the Middle East.

Oh, and pulling out the suggested 500,000 wouldn't?

[JSojourner]

You know, as much as I oppose the Iraq war, I think those who support escalation are right in one sense.  If we escalate, we CAN win. 

Just like we could have won in Vietnam.  If we escalated.

You escalated in Vietnam. And then you escalated. And then you escalated a wee bit more. And then you really escalated.
And with every escalation, the US' position in the region became more untenable.
Remember with how little troops you started on that war?

Sorry man, you sure can write but you need to reality-check your positions from time to time.

I meant to be more clear about Vietnam.  I think escalation that would lead to victory would have required at least four million soldiers on the ground and a willingness to use nukes on Hanoi.

We would win.  If you can call that winning. You are absolutely correct, however.  The scenario I propose was unthinkable and would have been a morally repugnant option.  Just because we could have done it, doesn't mean we should have.

I draw this parallel to highlight our problem in Iraq.  While we probably have no need of nukes there, an escalation to a million+ troops (via the draft, undoubtedly) and a take no prisoners approach could "win".  Again, that's if you can call that winning.  That means if you shoot at us, you die.  If we THINK you might shoot at us, you die.  If you look at us cross-eyed, you die.

What I am saying, I guess, is that you win wars the way we fought them in World War Two.  No, not talking battlefield tactics.  The tactics can change.  But the "victory or death" idea is all that can ensure victory.  In other words, screw civilian casualties.  Screw our own troops.  They are expendable.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't think I advocate this.  By no means.  I advocate as quick a withdrawal from Iraq as possible!  Because we can't win. And the only way we CAN win would make us worse than Saddam ever was.

This is why war should be reserved for one purpose.  If your shores are attacked by a foreign power, then it's on.  Otherwise, you are just playing deadly games with no victor in the end.

Was it General Lee who said, "It is good that war is so terrible, lest we should become too fond of it?"  He was right. 

Our quick and easy victories in Grenada and Desert Storm left too many Americans (politicos and citizens) with the pathetic impression that victory comes quick, easy, relatively cheap and with very little loss of life...at least, for us.  But Grenada was a small and confined area with no insurgency.  As for 1991, we got out more or less as soon as Kuwait was free.  In that sense, there was a victory.  But had we gone to Bagdhad, what we are experiencing now would have been our experience then.

[JSojourner]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All you'd ensure is that Americans are hated forever and will lose all influence in the region as soon as they start pulling out again (in a sense, of course, that's been true for decades anyways). Which would be fairly quickly given the costs of that.


[/quote]

Heh.  You're preaching to the choir, my friend. 

[JSojourner]

I see two feasible options for Iraq:

1)  Draft about 500,000 troops.  Iraq should be stable very quickly and we can move on.  Expensive and unpopular  but we can move on and would probably have the best long-term conclusion.

2)  Don't bring in any more troops and start handing over the operation to the Iraqi Security Forces.  It'd be popular and we could bring the troops home quickly but for the long-term it would probably lead to greater instability in the Middle East.

I see a third option, but it won't go over well here.

Go to the UN, NATO and the Arab League...hat in hand...and admit that they were right and we were wrong.  Apologize.  Set a six month timetable for the withdrawal of US troops and ask them to step in.  Offer to pay reparations for the damage we have done.  Then the government can try to recoup the reparation money from the people who got rich off the war.

As I type this, I know it won't happen.  And yes, it's ridiculous.  But it's no more ridiculous an option than escalation.

[minionofmidas]

This war is looking more Vietnamese by the hour.

Except for the part where there is no equivalent for the NVA.

Except for that part, absolutely. That very major part. No disagreement here.