That Bush intends to escalate his current policy with a euphemistically named GÇ£surgeGÇ¥ of 20,000 ground troops is apparent in what Robert Parry in consortiumnews.com (http://www.consortiu...) called a GÇ£slow motion purgeGÇ¥ by Bush of senior military leaders who oppose the surge. First, Bush suddenly fired his heretofore sacrosanct Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. We now know that, just before his forced departure, Rumsfeld had written a memo suggesting a major adjustment to Iraq policy by advocating GÇ£an accelerated drawdown of U.S. forces,GÇ¥ moving troops out of Iraq mainly into Kuwait, where they would go on standby as a Quick Reaction Force. (Side note: As I recall, this has been one of Senator WebbGÇÖs proposals). That memo, rather than bipartisan calls for RummyGÇÖs departure, is probably what caused his exit. He has been replaced by the notably accommodating Robert Gates, a functionary who has always given his boss whatever answers the boss desires.
Next, General John Abizaid, the top commander in the Middle East, suddenly announced his early retirement, to take effect in March. Abizaid happens to be fluent in Arabic, and therefore was criticized by neocons as being too concerned about Arab sensibilities. Then, General George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, who had publicly said any troop escalation would be unnecessary and probably unproductive, suddenly found that he would be replaced ahead of schedule, either in February or March. Bush is clearing the decks of any military who do not fully support his escalation of the war. So much for BushGÇÖs GÇ£listening to my military commanders.GÇ¥
BEYOND THE SURGE
There is a serious question of where the 20,000 extra troops will come from. So far, the answer has been to extend deployments, and throw in the components currently held in reserve. It is tactically short-sighted and dangerous to commit your reserves without a strategic battle plan for final victory. BushGÇÖs tentative plans for enlarging the Army will not result in additional trained troops for at least two years, assuming that the additional volunteers actually step forwardGÇö already the Army has difficulty in meeting its enlistment quotas, and has reduced its standards so that older age groups are being accepted, not to mention individuals with questionable backgrounds, like skinheads. Some neocon advocates of a surge believe that 20,000 is too few to do the job, and insist we need up to double that number, but they have no idea where to find these numbers, unless the U.S. contracts with private paramilitary or security forces, like Blackwater.
Perhaps Bush is simply throwing 20,000 more bodies into his war simply in order to drag it out until he goes out of office and can leave the problem to his successor.
Two other elements enter into the equation: Bush, with support of Israeli hard-liner Prime Minister Olmert, is adamant that he will not talk with Iran or Syria (as recommended by the ISG Report) until each fulfills BushGÇÖs non-negotiable demands, which neither is likely to do. So tensions are rising there; and second, BushGÇÖs principal ally Tony Blair is going to resign his post this spring, depriving Bush of his last significant international support. Time is running out.
The next few months are crucial. Given BushGÇÖs known risk-taking propensity, and his obvious contempt for the advice his fatherGÇÖs friends offered in the ISG report, it is entirely possible that Bush will GÇ£double down,GÇ¥ his Mideast bet, as Robert Parry says, and expand the war by attacking Iran. There is already an enlarged U.S. fleet with aircraft carriers on station in the Gulf region, available for war at a momentGÇÖs notice, in addition to the 20,000 (or more) troops likely to be in Iraq shortly.
WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRATS?
Why have the Democratic national leadership been quiet as frightened mice about Iraq? They won the election in good measure because of the publicGÇÖs rejection of BushGÇÖs Iraq policies, but Democrats have allowed Bush to seize the initiative and proceed to do as he pleasesGÇö possibly out of a belief it is the executive who determines foreign policy in wartime.
Mark Warner thinks otherwise. At the Northern Virginia Democratic Business Council on Friday the 5th, former Governor Warner commented that the Democrats should have immediately come out in full support of the ISG Report, last December, and held BushGÇÖs feet to the fire. Now, it is too late and Bush is well on the way to presenting us all with a fait accompli, his New Way Forward to Stay the Course.
When the Oliver Norths and Krauthammers of the world start raising a stink about the surge, you know the president is in some serious trouble.
Btw, don't know if you've read it, but I highly recommend that International Crisis Group's follow-up to the ISG: "After Baker Hamilton". The report raises makes some valid criticisms of Baker-Hamilton--especially as it relates to supporting the Maliki government. I'll pull together a diary on this in the next day or two.
A copy of the report is available at . . .