Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact

The Speech: Goodbye, Disneyland

bush_unacceptable.jpgAlmost every time I've heard President Bush talk over most of the last six years, I felt like the guy was speaking to me from a parallel dimension. A Disneyland, happy-face universe, where freedom was always on the march, and terrorists were just about to be smoked out of their holes. No matter how bad Iraq got, the good guys were winning. No matter how many people got blown up, everything was just fine.

Tonight was different. A visibly nervous President Bush stepped out of the Magic Kingdom, and spoke to us, for once, from the White House. He described an Iraq that matched up to the one my friends serving there describe - the one I've seen myself. He was honest about the challenges ahead. And he was straight-up about how his plan to settle Iraq down hadn't worked.

When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation... We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together – and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.

But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq – particularly in Baghdad – overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq’s elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam – the Golden Mosque of Samarra – in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq’s Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people – and it is unacceptable to me.

Now, I'm pretty damn skeptical that Bush's solution for Iraq -- 21,500 more U.S. troops -- is really going to turn things around. There are some intriguing elements, yeah. And there are some good, new commanders to carry the strategy out -- ones who seem ready to commit to counterinsurgency's most basic tenets. But it all seems like too little, too late.

The only way this plan even has the smallest scrap of hope of working is if it's governed by cold-eyed reality, not fuzzy-headed wishes. So give the President credit, at least, for driving out of Disneyland.

Latest Comments

Good Morning Folks,

To cherp in on this I will start by refering to the WSJ's editorial page today regarding President Bush's speach of last. To believe have confidence in what is being purposed one has to have a great deal of faith and hope. Since I'm of no faith and little hope, I'm not sure if any of this even belong at Disneyland which does exost in the real world.

President Bush's surge of 21K troops into Baghdad by the White House's own extimate will take six months and that is assuming everything goes well, yea right. The there is the small question of numbers.

According to the new Army Manual on insurgenicy the rato of combat troops to population for pacification is 20:10K or for a city of 6million such as Baghdad that would be 120K combat troops. Assuming that the Iraqis can produce half of these troops, I'm dreaming now that is still 60K combat troops for Baghdad alone. Using a conservative ratio of 5:1 support to cpmbat troops this says that at least 300K U.S. troops to secure Baghdad.

Oh, did I forget to mention the officer who supervised the Army's new Field Manual on Insurgenicy is Lt. Gen. David Petraeus,the new guy in Baghdad.

I just lost the little hope that I might have had that this ill concieved scheme of President Bush's will do any thing other then generate more body bags.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at January 11, 2007 1:43 PM


Driving out of Disneyland?....sorry, ain't so. when his military commanders balk at achieving "success" via this latest escalation, no, you cannot say that Bush is truely trying to make good. he is only grasping at straws.

going to pull forces out of Afganistan in order to prop up work in Bagdad? hey fellas (and ladies).....anybody got any idea what happened to catchin' n killen ol Bin Laden?.....the guy who actually, really attacked us?

y'all must remember him, surely?

Posted by: campbell at January 11, 2007 11:17 AM


I think there are still some people worried more about insurgents and militia members escaping, not by leaving the city, but simply by going home, putting their AK-47 back above the mantlepiece, and sitting down to dinner with their family. This isn't Falluja, a city awash in insurgents from all over the country. This is Baghdad. Even if you kick out all the non-natives and send them to jail, you probably won't find even a quarter of the ones who actually live and work in the city. Not even local troops will help much - you can't expect them to know much about people in a different neighborhood than theirs.

That's why Clear and Hold is so important. If you can force the militias and such to go back to normal civilian life, restore order (a strong, non-partisan and uncorrupt police force), give them a job, and generally treat them well, chances are that when you leave they won't rise up the moment your back is turned. But this takes time - possibly several years, during which time we have to secure essentially the entire city. It also depends on the Iraqi government cleaning up their act and improving both security and quality of life.

I think that when it comes to Clear and Hold, doing a half-assed job is worse than not doing it at all. I haven't seen any indication that this much strength is enough to hold Baghdad, and is capable of holding the city for however long it takes the Iraqi government to get their act together. If they can't, then all we're doing is putting more targets on the street for no discernable benefit.

Posted by: danAlwyn at January 11, 2007 10:22 AM


@Pedestrian
No, number of troops has nothing to do with low intensity warfare. It is the exact opposite. Whether you bash in doors by the dozen or by the hundred, it doesn't make the slightest difference. And if you were capable of searching every single house in Baghdad on a single day, that is totally meaningless if in doing so, you created as many new insurgents with your conduct as you took out.

20,000 new troops is merely "same ol' same ol'". It's "I admit I made mistakes so you can't accuse me of not doing so, but I haven't learned a thing, I don't really see any mistakes and I won't change anything significant either."

20,000 new walking body bags who have no idea how to behave in a foreign city are just more meat to the slaughter. It's a cheap shot attempt at trying to save himself to the bell and let someone else dig the US out of the mud he ran them into, much like his father did with Somalia. He is totally incapable of self-skepticism and self-criticism. He knows what's right and the entire rest of the world, including the armed forces, is a bunch of brainless idiots who have no idea what they're talking about.

No, more troops is not "low intensity warfare", it's only one thing: More targets for the insurgents. To suggest that with sealing off quarters, one could solve the issue, is to state pretty clearly one doesn't have the slightest idea why the operation is failing. It doesn't have anything to do with the number of M-16s on the ground.

Posted by: Kraut at January 11, 2007 8:09 AM


"Almost every time I've heard President Bush talk over most of the last six years, I felt like the guy was speaking to me from a parallel dimension. "

Wow-when I was reading some your posts from BIAP.... from a computer at Biap I thought you guys were in a parallel dimension! Some times I think you still are.

Posted by: Max at January 11, 2007 6:05 AM


» View All 11 Comments

» Post a Comment