John Amato at CrooksandLiars.com points to this Financial Times article as proof that General Petraeus believes a troop surge of 2o,ooo is insufficient to get the job done. First off, it’s not clear to me that General Petraeus states this. It appears to me to be the analysis of Kenneth Pollack and those at the Brookings Institution. Not Petraeus. Dean Barnett says,
And Amato cites this as the moneyquote:
The report says the ideal ratio of troops to population in a counter-insurgency operation is 20 per 1,000. This would imply the US would need to add at least 250,000 to its existing force of 140,000 – a logistical and political impossibility. Iraq’s population is 26m.
The problem here, is that the entire country of Iraq doesn’t need pacification. The violence is concentrated in Baghdad and the Anbar Province. The President made clear last night in his speech, that the majority of the 21,500 troop surge will be sent into Baghdad:
The vast majority of them — five brigades — will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.
According to Dean Barnett, the number is 13,000 in Baghdad, making this a 150% increase in troop level.
About 4,000 Marines will be sent into Anbar Province to pacify Sunni insurgents.
Surge on!
*UPDATE* 01/12/07– Steve from ThreatWatch provides this in regards to my question of current troop numbers in Baghdad:
From page 20 of the Kagan report ("Choosing Victory"), page 20:
The current deployment of U.S. forces in and around Baghdad, therefore, provides approximately four BCTs (twelve battalions or about 20,000 troops in all) for conducting combat operations in the city. The equivalent of one BCT is required for base security. Such a force level is evidently inadequate for clearing and holding any sizable portion of Baghdad.
Thanks,Steve!
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
Um, they complain about surge as though it’s misleading, but push the idea that redeployment is not retreat, rout, defeat, loss, or anything shy of a Monty Python skit where soldiers scream “RUNAWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY”
nope.
no duplicity there
the left never ceases to amaze me. They can’t even read a simple article and get it right! I find all their screaming ironic, THEY have been calling for a new direction in Iraq for at least a year…. yet when Bush replaces the man who has been the architect of the old direction that they have been complaining about, they slam Bush.
They say that Bush replaced General Casey as the top commander in Baghdad with Petraeus because, as one blogger puts it, General Casey “isn’t in lockstep with the direction Bush wants to take, and feels that adding more troops would make the U.S. look like an occupier (i.e., “the truth”)” (http://theprogressivetruth.blogspot.com/2007/01/general-casey-another-casualty-in-war.html)
Now, I know that looking for logic in the actions and thoughts of people who get confused by a 12 paragraph article is not easy but lets try.
First, they scream about a “new direction in Iraq” because things are going poorly in Iraq(according to them and the AP)then they scream because the man who has been in control of operations in Iraq, who’s decisions have let things get worse, is let go (actually promoted, but I will get to that in a second). And why is he let go? Because Bush wants to go in a new direction. They truely have lost touch with reality.
Another funny side note is that the left keep comparing Gen. Casey being replaced to Gen. Shinseki retiring. They are both supposed casualties of “Bush’s war on truth”, but when Shinseki retired as scheduled (they say forced to retire) he was Army’s Chief of Staff. Now what position do you think Casey has been promoted to? Wouldn’t you know it, he is now the Army’s Chief of Staff. So if Bush would axe the Army’s Chief of Staff for disagreeing with him why would he give that same position to someone who he supposedly axed for disagreeing with him.
now I know why they call them the loony left.