Recommending What the Boss Dictates
This just in:
Top U.S. military commanders in Iraq have decided to recommend a “surge” of fresh American combat forces, eliminating one of the last remaining hurdles to proposals being considered by President Bush for a troop increase, a defense official familiar with the plan said Friday.
They have “decided,” hmn? Let’s see, in this administration, who is the “Decider”?
But the recommendation by commanders in Iraq is significant because Bush has placed prime importance on their advice. The U.S. command in Iraq decided to recommend an increase of troops several days ago, prior to meetings in Baghdad this week with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, the defense official said.
Oh, yeah, that’s right–the whole “surge” thing is Bush’s idea, his way of politically reacting to the Democratic control of Congress and their desire to end the conflict due to the, um, what’s that called… oh yeah, the “will of the people.” So Bush instead says, “No, the War in Iraq is not a failure, in fact, I’m gonna show you by sending in more troops, and it’s gonna work unless those darn Democrats pressure me to withdr–hey!!!”
But, of course, Bush has to appear to be listening to his generals. After all, he made a big point about having done that from the start, even though every shred of objective evidence tells us the exact opposite. So, of course, this “surge” idea is one that the generals were for all along.
Commanders have been skeptical of the value of increasing troops, and the decision represents a reversal for Casey, the highest-ranking officer in Iraq. Casey and Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top commander in the Middle East who will step down in March, have long resisted adding troops in Iraq, arguing that it could delay the development of Iraqi security forces and increase anger at the United States in the Arab world.
The most interesting thing here: I don’t see much indication that the press is willing to get nearly enough backbone to call this for what it so transparently is: Bush ordering the generals to publicly recommend a strategy they disapprove of so that Bush can look politically sound as he sends hundreds more of our young men and women out to get killed in his very own meat grinder of a quagmire.
Update: Since I wrote this this morning (and didn’t have a chance to upload due to a busy holiday schedule), someone on Kos has blogged on this, as I am sure have others. The bloggers, of course, are not reticent. But the straight-copy reporters can’t go so far as stating the obvious in what is essentially a job that repeats the official party line where Bush is involved. They cannot dare cross that line.
“Surge” is, no doubt, a focus group tested term used in lue of the term “escalation”, which would send schockwaves of memories of Vietnam throughout the nation – Thank you Frank Luntz.
Ahhh, but Vietnam was fought by a conscripted army.
This from William Pfaff in today’s Korean Herald:
“(The War) is being fought by a volunteer (but now, to a significant extent, impressed, due to compulsory extensions of service) Army and Marine Corps, mainly recruited from the ambitious poor and lower middle classes. There is a certain sense of crisis, yet belief remains that America still leads the world, although national confidence has been shaken”.
In Vietnam, because of conscription and the interuption upon young peoples lives for dubious goals, the people protested, but the Army held resolute.
In Iraq, if appears, because of an all volunteer army, the people did not protest, but the Army my crumble due to fatigue, disertion or protest, or some combination of the above.
I find it strange that the Officer Corp would be willing to die for their country, but not sacrifice their careers for the country. I can’t say I blame them on the one hand, but on the other, what’s the difference? It’s a matter of degrees I suppose. One side brings medals, the other risks infamy if one takes the wrong stance.