Bush Drops His "Bomb", It's a Dud!

The well anticipated plan for a "surge" of troops into Baghdad has been announced. Bush calls for better security, saying he didn't send enough troops last year. This speech is about 4 years too late. He had to fire his commanders in Iraq to get agreement on a surge. This is a political decision putting in harms way more of our sons and daughters with very little expected in return.
washingtonpost.com

Bush acknowledged for the first time that he had not sent enough troops to provide security in Iraq last year. Standing in the library of the White House, he described the situation in Iraq as "unacceptable" to the American people and to himself. "Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do," he said. "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."


[...]"The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad,"

Security after the invasion was the issue and had it been dealt with then, there might be some hope for success. As it is...Wesley K. Clark weighs in:

Yes, several additional brigades in Baghdad would allow for more roadblocks, patrols and neighborhood-clearing operations. Some initial successes would be evident. But how significant would this be? We've never had enough troops in Iraq. In Kosovo, we had 40,000 troops for a population of 2 million. That ratio would call for at least 500,000 troops in Iraq; adding 20,000 now seems too little, too late.


Further, U.S. troops so far have lacked the language skills, cultural awareness and political legitimacy to ensure that areas "cleared" can be "held." The key would be more Iraqi troops, but they aren't available in the numbers required. Nor are the Iraqi troops reliable enough for the gritty work of dealing with militias and sectarian loyalties. Even if militia fighters in Baghdad can be temporarily suppressed, they could redeploy to continue the fight in other areas.


What the surge would do is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut the morale of U.S. forces and risk further alienating elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops appeared on the streets -- as happened in the summer when a brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad. And even if the increased troop presence initially frustrated the militias, it wouldn't be long before they found ways to work around the neighborhood searches and other obstacles, if they chose to continue the conflict.

What everyone keeps forgetting is that there is already 100,000 mercenaries paid by taxpayers. They aren't doing the job either. How could just 22,000 make a difference?

What is striking about the current debate in Washington - whether to "surge" troops to Iraq and increase the size of the U.S. Army - is that roughly 100,000 bodies are missing from the equation: The number of American forces in Iraq is not 140,000, but more like 240,000.


What makes up the difference is the huge army of mercenaries - known these days as "private contractors." After the U.S. Army itself, they are easily the second-largest military force in the country. Yet no one seems sure of how many there are since they answer to no single authority. Indeed, the U.S. Central Command has only recently started taking a census of these battlefield civilians in an attempt to get a handle on the issue...

Bush has opposed ramping up training of the Iraqi troops until this year, way too late to make a difference. He's never intended to pull troops out, that's the part the media keeps ignoring. Now he's trying to rescue his party's political future.