Petraeus: "Surge" has 25% chance of success.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Arrian


Aren't we on plan F by now?

-Arrian

There's a plan now?

[KrazyHorse]

[/QUOTE] is your friend

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Personally, I think that more troops were an almost certain method to gain at least a temporary quell in the civvy/militia/insurgent-on-civvy violence.

There are two questions:

EDIT: three! Three questions. Surprise, fear, and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope...

1) Will this reduction be accompanied by a rise in insurgent-on-US+Iraqi troops+police (will the people who had been killing Iraqi civilian turn their attention to military targets now that there's more of them)?

Not likely very much. More random bombs and IEDs, but not any real attempt at decisive engagement. The *******s are not stupid - they know a surge is just that - not a permanent increase in force density. They also know that our proverbial wet dream is to get the *******s to try to pile on somewhere in a decisive engagement, or even any significantly higher scale of operations. So they more or less lay low, disperse critical caches, etc.

2) Will the reduction in Baghdad be accompanied by a rise in violence elsewhere (will the people who have been killing civilians in Baghdad take to killing civilians elsewhere)?

Not directly, in all likelihood - only to the extent that we had a sufficient force density in a given area to deter insurgent activity, but lose critical density by transferring troops out of that area. You won't likely see any significant movement of sufficient numbers of *******s - they will disperse locally and lie low, or moved to safe havens early on.

3) Will the reduction in violence lead to more permanent peacefulness (by calming down a situation which had been spiralling out of control) or:

a) Will the violence simply remain low until the additional troops leave (waiting to fight another day)

b) Will the violence remain low for only a short while until the civilians/militia/insurgents figure out how to kill their neighbour even with more US troop presence?

"Typical" insurgent doctrine (anywhere) is to avoid force on force confrontation. I would expect a combination of lying low plus increased efforts on the part of the Shiite militias to police and security forces in Shiite dominated areas, and increased recruiting, training and planning on the part of Sunni insurgents in areas sympathetic to them.

None of the insurgent forces has near suffiecient power to prevail in a force on force confrontation - only the power to disrupt the government, reduce its "credibility" (for lack of a better word, it's not like it really has any), and create a situation that's really beyond anyone's ability to control.

[KrazyHorse]

I think its more than spiraling down, its got to involve political progress as well.

That much is obvious, but political progress won't go very far when a couple of thousand people are being killed every month. The question here is whether both groups have been driven so far by the other's outrages and now have such entrenched organisations of dedicated death squads, bombers etc that they will either be unable to forgive the other group for what it's done or will be unable to rein in their extremists (even if they wanted to).

[KrazyHorse]

None of the insurgent forces has near suffiecient power to prevail in a force on force confrontation - only the power to disrupt the government, reduce its "credibility" (for lack of a better word, it's not like it really has any), and create a situation that's really beyond anyone's ability to control.

I'm not suggesting they do. In point 3b I was thinking more that they might be able to figure out ways to work around the increased presence. Wait until the patrol goes past before you open up on a school full of kids. This might take a while (until they figure out how the troops are operating now that they have greater numbers)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

I think its more than spiraling down, its got to involve political progress as well.

That much is obvious, but political progress won't go very far when a couple of thousand people are being killed every month. The question here is whether both groups have been driven so far by the other's outrages and now have such entrenched organisations of dedicated death squads, bombers etc that they will either be unable to forgive the other group for what it's done or will be unable to rein in their extremists (even if they wanted to).

One, I agree that getting the number of killings down is the prerequisite for political progress, which is the logic behind the surge to begin with.

I also agree that even with a decline in the number of killings, AND with political agreements among the leaders on oil, debaathification, and constitutional structure, there will STILL be people who will want to kill out of sheer revenge, and who will STILL have to be defeated by force.

Whats not clear, I guess, is how many of those there are, and how much support they will get. If a political deal and a several month period of relative quiet can cut the number eager to continue the cycle by half, lets say, that makes it easier for the Iraqi forces to deal with it with less American help.

[Q Classic]

Re: Petraeus: "Surge" has 25% chance of success.

Originally posted by Ramo

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1172906738122510.xml&coll=7&thispage=2

There's no plan B.

Of course there's no Plan B. It's the abortion pill, after all. And this administration has told us that under no circumstances will any babies ever be killed, no matter how stillborn they might be.

Like this, their Plan A.

[KrazyHorse]

Oh, and I'd like to say that even if my 3 questions do not have the answers we hope they do I am still in favour of the US putting more troops in as a stopgap until a better answer can be found. I think they have a moral responsibility to do so.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No, only 7/16

I was not going for accuracy (the 25% figure is sooooo right anyway), I was wanting to say 'odds are even'.

[MichaeltheGreat]

**** moral responsibility.

Neither the government (incompetent and corrupt at best, infiltrated at average and participants at worst) nor the various Shiite and Sunni groups happily blowing up shoppers, pilgrims, schoolkids, hospitals and the like have shown any sense of moral responsibility.

[MOBIUS]

Scores of Iraqi pilgrims killed

Looks like the insurgents in Baghdad have gone on tour...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Dauphin


I was not going for accuracy (the 25% figure is sooooo right anyway), I was wanting to say 'odds are even'.

I know you know how to combine probabilities. I was just making a little joke...

[Dauphin]

What a riot you are! Ha-ha-ha!



(My joke wasn't that funny either. )

[Drake Tungsten]

Given the continued level of carbombings, the major uncertainties about political progress, and the general uncertainty associated with operations in Iraq its premature to say things are "going pretty well" even with the caveat "so far"

If a 50% reduction in deaths after only a couple weeks of the surge isn't enough to warrant the tepid praise that is "it's going pretty well so far", I don't know what is...

[DRoseDARs]

Things are so "successful" with Bush's The Surge Plan, the Pentagon is revising its troop numbers estimate upwards...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070306/pl_nm/iraq_usa_dc

Pentagon raises estimate of troops for Iraq

By Richard Cowan Tue Mar 6, 4:31 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of U.S. troops needed to carry out
President George W. Bush's
Iraq security plan could approach 30,000, significantly more than he projected in January, a senior
Pentagon official said on Tuesday.

In testimony to the House of Representatives Budget Committee, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England said U.S. military commanders in Iraq were requesting varying numbers of support troops to augment the additional 21,500 soldiers Bush has ordered into combat.

"At this point, our expectation is the number of ... troops could go above 21,500 by about 4,000, maybe as many as 7,000," England said.

There are nearly 140,000 U.S. troops already fighting in Iraq, where sectarian violence has thwarted American efforts to bring the 4-year-old war to a close.

In a speech to the American Legion veterans organization, Bush insisted the new Iraq security plan he announced was making gradual progress, despite new violence.

The new estimate of the rising number of troops being committed to the war came as House Democrats continued wrangling over how to end America's combat role in Iraq.

After a meeting of leaders and the 233-member Democratic caucus there was no sign that liberals, moderates and conservatives in the party were getting behind an comprehensive war plan.

But Democratic Rep. James Moran (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia, who sits on a House panel overseeing war funding, said upcoming legislation would include a date in 2008 for ending the war.

Democrats are targeting a $100 billion emergency war spending bill for conditions that could prompt a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. House leaders want to pass the bill before a two-week recess starting the beginning of April.

Democratic leaders said the bill would increase U.S. funds to battle al Qaeda forces in
Afghanistan, impose "benchmarks" for measuring the Iraqi government's progress in taking over security activities and enforce Pentagon standards for equipping and training U.S. troops headed for combat.

But a fight over possible presidential waivers for such conditions continued among Democrats.

Arguing against any congressional attempt to scale back the mission, Bush said: "The mission is America's mission and our failure would be America's failure."

"Iraqi and U.S. forces are making gradual but important progress almost every day and we will remain steadfast until our objectives are achieved," Bush said.

His comments and the Democratic maneuvering came as the Pentagon announced nine U.S. troops died in two bomb attacks north of Baghdad. Meanwhile, insurgents killed 112 Shi'ite pilgrims heading to Iraq's holy city of Kerbala.

The new attacks are likely to increase sectarian tensions between majority Shi'ites and Sunni Arabs that have threatened to plunge the country into all-out civil war.

The deaths of the nine U.S. soldiers made for the deadliest day for U.S. forces since they launched the security crackdown in the capital three weeks ago.

The estimate of 4,000 to 7,000 new support troops needed for Iraq contrasts with a February 6 forecast by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that as many as 3,000 would be needed.

The higher estimate could raise the projected $5.6 billion price tag of the troop surge by about $1 billion, if about 4,000 support troops are needed, England said.

The Pentagon would "reallocate," or shift some money around, to pay for the added costs instead of asking Congress for additional funds, England said.

(Additional reporting by Steve Holland and Matt Spetalnick)

A lady friend of mine is getting sent to Iraq soon. This blows that much more for me and so very much more for her and her little girl.