Much of President Bush's speech this evening offered a detailed look at the planned strategy of how the troops involved in the "surge deployment" will be used in Baghdad. Bush listed the numbers of American troops involved (20,000), the number of Iraqi brigades that will participate (and, more or less, where), and how they plan to clear out the city, district by district, of terrorists, insurgents and armed militia.
Am I missing something or is this the first time in history that a military commander announced the details of his battle plan to the enemy before the battle?
What gives with this? I can see al-Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Muqtada al-Sadr taking notes on the speech, glancing through their appointment calendars and planning how to elude, evade, and counter the proposed sweep of Baghdad in the coming months.
Twenty thousand new troops to Baghdad and 4,000 to Anbar Province.
Is it possible that Bush offered a feint (or an outright lie) tonight? Is it possible that the real battle will be fought first in Anbar with an increased force significantly larger than the 4,000 new troops mentioned?
A quick sweep through Anbar from the south to the north culminating in a sealing off of the Syrian border and a sweep back to the southeast to join the rest of the force in the Baghdad operation could wipe out most of al-Qaeda's presence, seal off their supply route and corner them in Baghdad where they would have no place to run except into Shia territory (where they would be warmly greeted, I'm sure).
Or, will the strategy in Baghdad be more of an encircling of power centers such as Sadr City and the forced confiscation of arms?
Or will the strategy in Baghdad be a pincer movement driving the Sunni insurgents directly into the path of Shi'ite insurgents being driving into them from the opposite direction — and then letting them kill off each other while the American and Iraqi troops stand by and watch?
I'm fantasizing, of course, but I just cannot bring myself to believe that Bush, for the sake of national unity, or simply telling it like it is, would telegraph our counter-insurgency strategy for Baghdad in such detail as he did tonight.
There has got to be something in this that is designed to throw the "bad guys" off-guard rather than to put them "on guard."
At least that's the way I look at it.
Anyone else have any ideas on this?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
I just edited a slew of articles on the speech and the plan, and I have to give you points, Bird. Yours is the most interesting. Creative speculation is so much more stimulating than the usual bitching...
Dave
2 - Bliffle
Bush is simply not a strategist. Such subtlety is not to his taste. He doesn't even understand the concept of a feint. No, this is not a ruse. Yes, he has unwisely revealed his feeble plan. Predictably, he will fail.
3 - SHARK
As usual, I disagree with Nalle; of ALL the things to ponder about this horrible speech, probably the LEAST important is to wonder about the purpose behind "giving away a strategy" to the enemy.
First of all, WHERE on earth did you hear anything about a "strategy"?
Bush hasn't had a strategy since the day our troops arrived in Baghdad.
And more importantly, IT WAS A COMMERCIAL, fer chrissakes!
A MARKETING SPOT meant to convince the American public that he needs more time to deal with Iraq. [read, "I want to leave it for the next President."]
Please NOT TO confuse Presidential Sales Pitches with substiative strategic plans.
Thanks.
4 - Nancy
Bush has no strategy except to deny, lie, & keep repeating the same old mantra over & over again, convinced that since he's The Decider that will make it so. He's obviously living in a world of fantasy, unreality, and total denial. The alternative is that he's an even colder, more homicidal monster than Hussein ever was, willing to sacrifice the lives of countless troops & their families to bolster his ego & his presidential legacy, which he thinks success in Iraq will retrieve. In either event, he's the same as he always was: a loser, a failure, and a fool.
5 - Melita Teale
I think the alternatives are that it was either a feint, a "misunderestimation" of the intelligence of the enemy, or the cynical knowledge 20 000 extra troops isn't enough either but it was all he could manage so he might as well get some loud press out of it.
I like the first or the third.
6 - Nancy
Well, again I hope the new congress has the guts to take a stand & refuse the financial support, thereby pulling the rug out from under this incompetent clownish asshole, but as I said elsewhere, given the track record of congressmaggots in general of either party, I'm not sanguine. On the other hand, maybe there is a ray or two of hope, since several GOP congressmaggots seem to have gotten the message from their constituents that we the people really genuinely don't like the US body bags, that an increase in these is not acceptable, and that if they continue to support the presidential fuckup in chief they can kiss their butts goodbye in the '08 congressional elections. IMO, however, they won't do anything until it's been made public that BushCo's wiretapping (& now exposed violation of the mails as well) involves not just purported terrorists, but illegal snooping into political opponents' stuff as well, something which is an open secret in political circles. Why the media are sitting on the story is anybody's guess.
What really kills me about all this is that the fool won't even listen to his own military leaders & bipartisan committee recommendations. He & that lying psychopathic vp of his have just dug in, & don't give a damn how many Americans die for their stupidity & incompetence. Those two really have crossed the line & become guilty of treason if not worse, between willfully sending US troops to death or mutilation in Iraq for their egos sake, and the equally lame but deliberate violation of the constitution. God knows there's ample grounds to string both of them up by their mesenteric tissues; so what's the holdup?
7 - D'oh
The Congress more than likely won't pull funding, for fear of looking as if they do not support the troops, who have done nothing wrong but try and do the job they were ordered to do.
If you want hope, keep an eye on congressional committee investigations on how the Administration has been spending $10 million AN HOUR in Iraq.
That will be a crucial key to it all, the tired old axiom that has caught countless criminals...follow the money.
8 - marianne
We all keep hoping that Bush is smarter than he seems don't we? Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case in six years so hoping that he will change is as fruitless as Bush's hope that doing the same thing over and over again will redeem his mistakes in Iraq.
9 - Dave Nalle
Well, again I hope the new congress has the guts to take a stand & refuse the financial support, thereby pulling the rug out from under this incompetent clownish asshole
And thereby making a mockery of the Constitution in a way which makes all of Bush's pety abusdes seem trivial by comparison.
Dave
10 - D'oh
And here I had thought the purse strings WERE the Constitutional responsibility of Congress.
11 - Nancy
Marianne is right: hoping for change in something immutable is pointless as well as a waste of time & energy. Oh well.
D'oh, I've been outraged since 9-11 by the spineless ceding by congress of every single responsibility/duty they've had to anybody who cared to take over, namely BushCo., with predictable results. What really adds insult to injury is that they have the gall to whine about the Executive impinging & infringing on THEIR rights-! What a pack of prevaricating pusillanimous invertebrates.
12 - Dr. Kurt
The speech reminded me of a commercial in which an old product is dressed up in new packaging and sold as "new and improved." There was no strategy there to give away. Minor tactical changes don't need congressional approval, or flashy speeches... I smell a rat, rather than a feint.
13 - Nancy
The usual Rovian/BushCo smoke & mirrors....
Does ANYBODY outside the WH believe any of it anymore? I do believe most of the public is finally seeing the emperor naked, even the most willfully blind of them.
14 - D'oh
Good question, Nancy.
Try this poll and it's results.
Right now it's more than 2 to 1 of people not being fooled, again. Check for yourselves.
15 - Nancy
It's about bloody time people woke up & used their brains for a change instead of just swallowing whole whatever pap the WH shovelled out.
16 - MCH
"And thereby making a mockery of the Constitution in a way which makes all of Bush's pety abusdes seem trivial by comparison."
- Dave Nalle
Easy to agree with the escalation when you don't have to go yourself, eh Nalle?
17 - Bliffle
Dave, it would just be tit-for-tat, given the admins consistent abuse of the constitution, which stands in spite of your hilarious attempts at rationalization. BushCo opened the door to abuse. Infact, by dishonoring constitiutional and traditional government operation he has forced his opposition to such use in desperation.
18 - MCH
"Does ANYBODY outside the WH believe any of it anymore?"
- Nancy
Uh, let's start with Dave Nalle, Clavos, Matthew T. Sussman, RJ Elliott, JOM, RedTard, Arch/Bing, David Flanagan, Eric Olsen, Phillip Winn, Franco, Baronius...
Shall I go on?
19 - Zedd
I think that those of us who stood STUNNED for years while the build up for this war was going on (after 911) and said nothing, need to learn from this as well.
I was scared to say anything. I would whisper to speak to anyone about my concerns and disagreement with the entire thing. Not only would I whisper, whomever I was speaking to would whisper too. Whether at the grocery store or and the gym, at work, etc. It was if we were in a different country.
How did WE let this happen.
Its great to be right. We've known we were from the start though. We said nothing, now thousands of young men and ladies are DEAD. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis are DEAD.
It took Cindy Sheehand to loose her mind after her son died and say something. Then we started speaking up, a little at a time.
Nancy, Biffle, MCH, D'oh and the rest. Where were WE.
20 - MCH
Zedd;
I've been writing letters to the editor and on blogcritics in opposition to this war and occupation since the invasion.
21 - Bird of Paradise
If I were to take a straw poll of the comments so far I believe that Bush would be voted to be, 1. and idiot; 2. a criminal and; 3. not a very popular guy!
The only comment I will make in reply to all of this is that his speech was undoubtedly vetted by both the Department of Defense (civilians) and the Pentagon brass (military). If Bush is an idiot for giving away the farm (anti-terrorist strategy in Baghdad) then they must all be idiots, too!
While I recognize and respect your almost universal loathing for President Bush you have not given me anything to really "chew on" regarding my question at the end of the post. Nothing, that is, except vitriol.
Unfortunately that does not taste very good and won't be eating (or drinking!) any of it today.
Anyone have something substantial to say?
22 - Dave Nalle
Re: #17 - Bliffle, I believe you just came up with a new maxim - two wrongs DO make a right.
Dave
23 - D'oh
You want something to "chew on"?
Very well.
Distinct possibility that this is nothing more than a repeat of the Cambodian incursion, meant to be able to bypass the Congress and goad Iran into touching a U.S. asset, like the carrier fleet sent out there, so that "retaliation" can be taken directly.
Putting aside all that could be called wrong about that, it would be sacrificing the real progress being made in internal Iranian politics by those actively striving against the current leaders of Iran in a try for a more secular government and to join the rest of the world in the 21st century.
All this for political points and an attempt at "legacy".
A solid argument could be made that more can be done on that front diplomatically with a little behind the scenes help to those internal factions interested in ousting the mullah regime.
Oh yes, and two wrongs do not always make a right, but three lefts do.
24 - Dave Nalle
Does ANYBODY outside the WH believe any of it anymore?
It's not a matter of believing or not believing. You need to think about things and figure them out for yourself and then decide who you think is actually acting in your best interests regardless of what they say or who they are.
Dave
25 - Bliffle
"Tit-for-tat" is vengeance, not justice. It's morally wrong (for that diminishingly small number of people who think morals are important enough to actually have some!), but it's understandable: you KNOW that if you screw someone they'll spend the rest of their lives looking for an opportunity to screw you back! In spades! So The Golden Rule is your best policy.
Would someone please inform GWB?