Sunday, February 11, 2007

Troop Surge Article

The CS Monitor has a good article on the changes to our counter insurgency effort. The article describes what the troop surge was intended to do. It was not designed to escalate the conflict but to put a counterinsurgency plan in place to try and stabilize Baghdad. Since the troop surge has pretty much been scuttled, the new commander will have to try and change policies without having the personnel in place. The article says that the new commander General Petraeus will have to try his counter insurgency with only about 3/4s of the manpower he thinks the task will require. The general will try to make up the gaps with a contract work force made up from the militias.

It is human nature that you have to invest a great deal of manpower to affect a successful policy change.

Now, the one real big problem I have with Bush's troop surge is that request did not include an indication of how long the troops need to be surged. The term surge implies a short duration, I wish reports on this issue included the duration.


Charles D said...

I think reports on the issue should all point out that military leaders do not believe the surge can be successful. Perhaps a prediction of the number of additional American troop deaths and permanent injuries that will result from the surge could be included as well.

y-intercept said...

I have read several hundred articles attacking (and a small number of articles supporting) the troop surge. This is the very first article I've come across that explains who the new commander is, what his plans are and why he requested the troop surge.

The reason why this general wants a troop surge is because he wants to use a counter insurgency techinque that he believes has been proven in the field.

I disagree strongly with your statement that every article must contain something that attacks Bush. Yes, that is how progressive thugs think. The classical liberal tradition works by people stating what something is.

Yes in the Progressive Marxist tradition this is not a good article because it does not progress the cause.

In the classical liberal tradition this is a very good article because it explains who General Petraeus is and what he wants to accomplish. It is a very clean and objective article.

Charles D said...

It used to be that conservative thugs had to include something against Clinton in every article. I simply want journalists to investigate, find and tell the truth.

I'm sure Petraeus is a good man and sincere, however he is not a miracle worker and no matter what technique he uses, he cannot make an illegal and unwarranted invasion and occupation a success.