More and More

Bill Kristol and Rich Lowry team up in today's Washington Post:

The bottom line is this: More U.S. troops in Iraq would improve our chances of winning a decisive battle at a decisive moment. This means the ability to succeed in Iraq is, to some significant degree, within our control. The president should therefore order a substantial surge in overall troop levels in Iraq, with the additional forces focused on securing Baghdad. . . .

Administration spokesmen have jettisoned talk of "staying the course" in Iraq in favor of "adapting to win." If those words are to have meaning, the administration can't simply stay the course on current troop levels. We need to adapt to win the battle of Baghdad. We need substantially more troops in Iraq. Sending them would be a courageous act of presidential leadership appropriate to the crisis we face.

Thrilling, thrilling stuff. Now, as I recall, twelve months ago it was September 2005. And twelve months before that it was September 2004. And four months earlier still, it was May 2004, when Kristol editorialized "It is true that the mistakes of the past year have had a dispiriting cumulative effect. It is true that it is harder to recover now than it would have been a year ago. But we can't win if we don't apply ourselves anew to trying to win." His solution: "The president orders Secretary Rumsfeld to send 50,000 more troops to Iraq to win the war. He also orders the secretary of defense to submit a plan to increase the overall size of our armed forces so that it is sufficient for the tasks ahead in the global war on terror." Somehow nothing that's happened over the past 28 months is in any way relevant to the assessment of the situation. America is perpetually on the brink, Bush is perpetually in need of enhanced seriousness about victory, and more troops are perpetually the answer.

Note also Kristol's April 24, 2006 call for "serious preparation for possible military action" against Iran, which "would be easier if the situation in Iraq improved--which implies an urgent push to make progress there, with the deployment of more troops if necessary." But if more troops go to Iraq, who's going to fight Iran? Even more troops: "Planning for action in Iran would be somewhat easier if the president finally insisted on a far-too-long-delayed increase in the size of the military."

I was going to call this the hawkery of fools, but really knaves is more like it. The wars are all going to be easy before we launch them, and the folks raising piddling questions should be dismissed. When the wars don't work out, it's always because we've been insufficiently warlike. When the wars produce broader strategic problems, we need more wars. And, of course, more troops. Always more troops.

Comments

Yeah, but what is your view? I thought the liberal line was that Shinseki was correct-we need more troops. Now it appears the liberal line is that Kristol is incorrect-we don't need more troops. ????

Steve

Posted by Steve | September 12, 2006 9:49 AM

I'm not sure if that last comment was serious (the multiple question marks make it appear sarcastic). Obviously the fact that we could have used more troops in 2003 doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea to increase troop levels in 2006, under completely different circumstances. Indeed, that seemed to be the major point of the post, so I'm not sure how anyone could miss it.

Posted by Steve | September 12, 2006 9:57 AM

See Glenn Greenwald today for Lowry's amazing u-turn on the subject (Kristol is more consistent. Deeply wrong, but consistently so). The Kaplan over at the publication that shall not be named (Lawrence, I think, definitely not Fred from Slate), came out with the "Pottery Barn" defense of staying in Iraq, though he didn't decide to grace us with an explanation of how they do anything other than delay the inevitable...the "if we stay it will be double" part of the verse as it were. Kaplan also managed to argue, for the first time I've seen in a while, that the US made a mistake in leaving Vietnam when we did, so apprently he'd be happy if we were fighting them there as well.

Posted by jfaberuiuc | September 12, 2006 10:11 AM

Now it appears the liberal line is that Kristol is incorrect-we don't need more troops. ????

please note the 4 year difference between today and when Shinseki was let go. more troops would've been great, in the beginning, to stop the insurgency from getting started.

Posted by cleek | September 12, 2006 11:09 AM

I'm against the war, but I think more troops are an absolute necessity to avoid total disaster in Iraq. About 400,000 more. Afghanistan needs help, too.

Of course that will require a draft. If BCR (Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld) had any damn sense at all they would have instituted the draft six months before the invasion and gone in with 350,000 troops.

It's a sorry situation they've put us it.

Posted by grytpype | September 12, 2006 11:35 AM

in

Posted by grytpype | September 12, 2006 11:35 AM

I'm pretty much in grytpype's camp (does that make me Moriarty?). I think the best option, which still wouldn't be pretty, would be massive mobilisation to get Kosovo-type concentrations of peacekeepers, on top of Special Forces/Marines for heavier duty work. Failing that, and it's obvious Bush isn't willing to do so, orderly but relatively swift redeployment is the second best option.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | September 12, 2006 11:51 AM

Their solution to everything is BOMB.
In the end Kristol, and most of the far right's foreign policy boils down to one thing, Genocide.

Posted by feckless | September 12, 2006 11:59 AM

*IF* it had been worth it to go into Iraq in the first place, Shinseki's advice was right. It wasn't his place to decide whether or not it was the right thing to do--he was tasked with doing it in such a way as to try and prevent it from becoming a major clusterfuck, with whatever tools he had at his disposal.

Whether Shinseki could have *EVER* prevented Iraq from becoming a major clusterfuck, the people who ran him out of the Pentagon on a rail are at the *very* least responsible for (1) proposing a sick, dangerous and wasteful (of both treasure AND human lives) course of action, and (2) doing their level-best to crush anyone who even tried to limit the horrible damage they were determined to cause.

Whether what Shinseki proposed could have prevented disaster is almost immaterial. What's important is that, faced with some serious choices, he actually *tried* to do it less badly than the criminal thugs who wanted it their way, all the way, and fuck the consequences.

Posted by Captain Goto | September 12, 2006 12:01 PM

At this point, the only sane, humane and reasonable thing is to withdraw and for us to presecute the war criminals in the bush administration. More troops are NOT going to help at this point, they will only lead to more killing. Our presence there honestly is not helping, and likely is making things worse. The Iraqis will fight it out whether or not we are there.

I think initially, the right force, a massive multi-national force, could have helped bring about regime change and create a stable iraq. But the place is beyond that now. We have to leave.

Posted by spooked | September 12, 2006 12:39 PM

I think we should have a draft, which would result in a massive defeat for the War Party at the polls, which would result in rapid withdrawal from all of our foreign overcommittments, and a toning down of the crazy rhetoric about Iran.

Posted by MQ | September 12, 2006 12:45 PM

One counter-blog-intuitive thought I just had: a 2008 Dem triangulator, especially a Clark or (hopefully) Webb--even Warner--could probably get a lot of mileage out of taking the "increase the size of the military" plank, which would work better as "repair the military that Bush weakened at every turn" and include a progressive-lefty pay bump, GI grant increase, as well as a reconsideration of military contractors and their negative affect on the morale of troops deployed in hot conflicts. It certainly does bother people that, dumb an idea as this war may have been, we still couldn't pull it off. I feel like people would go for 'Bush rushed us into Iraq when he should have given the military more time to re-allocate its assets to fight the war on terror. The Democrats won't make the same mistake."

Also it's a problem with only a Democratic solution. Make the case that the military is nearly broken and the Dems are the only party with the credibility to fix it, b/c what 18 year old would sign up today under a Republican President and risk getting shipped off to God knows where to fight in a dumb war for the wrong reasons. When it comes to dying in the desert , 10,000 miles from home in 120 degree heat, people tend to understand "uh, fool me, don't get fooled again." Probably not a popular stance with muc of the new activist left, although Kos himself seems to retain good feelings about the military and the doors it opened for him, so maybe a blog wedge? Which would be perfect for Warner. Send the far lefties off to Feingold and steal war-mongering centrist cred from Hillary and the DLCers without having to get too stupid on Iraq or Iran. In fact, it's kind of sneaky, but a big part of the appeal of this approach for me is that it would require them to ratchet down the rhetoric on Iran while the military has a chance to re-build, which would give the situation more time to get de-Cheneyified (aka de-stupidfied).

Posted by MSB | September 12, 2006 1:01 PM

Response to Steve. The Shinseki plan was the miltary telling the civilain leadership what it would take to achieve the mission of invading and stablizing Iraq in 2003. In late 2002 & early 2003, Kristol & Co was busy deriding anybody (including the generals) who pointed out the OBVIOUS holes in their thinking and arguements for attacking Iraq - many of us did - and were proven right. Kristol & Co has been CONSISTENTLY wrong since 2002 - they got nothing right. Why would anybody listen to these fools now?
In 2003, this was a very bad idea being executed poorly by the Bush leadership. FOUR years later and all those lost innocent lives and HUNDREDS of billions of $(largely borrowed from Comunist China) it is a huge disaster - propagated and sold by the neo-con wing of the GOP - who kno wthey are about to be held accountable. Now they are stuck and trying to sell a new war before being called to account for the Iraq fiasco.

Posted by DC | September 12, 2006 1:08 PM

It always intrigues me how these newer calls for more troops skip right over any function (much less competence) of Iraqi troops and police. With all of the training and equipping and turning over of stuff we've been doing here, surely the Iraqis are the extra troops we need now, right? I mean, more troops can't be an admission that the money and lives we are spending to trainup these guys is largely for naught, can it?

Posted by cassandra m | September 12, 2006 1:09 PM

Comment clogging rules. I should have said 're-allocate its assets to fight the war in Iraq and remain vigilant and effective in pursuing Al Qaeda and OBL. Instead we rushed, and so we got a disaster of a war while we lost our focus in Afghanistan and allowed OBL and the leadership of Al Qaeda and the Taliban escape mostly unharmed.' Only to note that we ought to keep drawing the distinction the public has recently grasped that Iraq is not an effective means of fighting terrorism, and to remind voter whenever possible that Iraq made Al Qaeda stronger. I have to give them credit. They did a great job with their "four legs good, two legs bad" routine. That shit is hard to shake off sometimes.

Posted by MSB | September 12, 2006 1:14 PM

I believe Privates Kristol and Lowrey need to report for duty then. Although that might be a mistake, since they'd probably get in as junior officers and end up getting good men killed.

Posted by moonbiter | September 12, 2006 1:16 PM

I was struck most by this:
'The bottom line is this: More U.S. troops in Iraq would improve our chances of winning a decisive battle at a decisive moment'

Kristol and Lowrey clearly read to much military history that is un applicable to current situations. It would be great to have the troops to win a decisive battle, if we could find a decisive battle. That's the whole point about an insurgency, they are seeking to avoid decisive battles. Decisive battles are fought by armies, which army are we fighting?

Posted by cdm | September 12, 2006 1:50 PM

The key point of the Kristol/Lowry lunacy is this. They really want a troop build up in Iraq in order to set the stage for the final solution in Iran.

Note the wily way in which they allow someone else to make the point for them, by quoting from “Harvard Law School’s William Stuntz”:

“Harvard Law School's William Stuntz recently made the core point powerfully: "The territory over which we fight is among the most strategically important in the world. Victory will place the most dangerous regime on the planet, Iran's fascist theocracy, in serious peril. Defeat will leave that same regime inestimably strengthened. If there is any significant possibility that the presence of more American soldiers on the ground would raise the odds of success, not putting those soldiers on the ground is a crime.” “

The road to Jerusalem is through Baghdad, and then Tehran!

Posted by Jim Dandy | September 12, 2006 2:00 PM

"The bottom line is this: More U.S. troops in Iraq would improve our chances of winning a decisive battle at a decisive moment."

What if they held "a decisive battle" and nobody came?

Who exactly would be so stupid as to emerge to fight "a decisive battle at a decisive moment" with the U.S. military, much less an augmented U.S. military? Especially in a multi-faction war of all against all?

The smart Iraqi strategy if the U.S. was adding men to fight "a decisive battle" in Baghdad would be to temporarily move to another part of the country, such as the crucial oil regions. That's what happened in Fallujah in late 2004 -- the bigshots headed north and just left the local neighborhood hooligans to die at the hands of the Marines.

Even more appealing to a militia leader would be a strategy of: Let's you and him fight.

Let your rivals get whomped by the Americans in the decisive battle. Then, when they're dead and the Americans are tired, you filter back in and take over.

Of course, all your rivals will have the same thought, so only disorganized teenage hotheads are likely to take up the American challenge.

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 12, 2006 2:16 PM

It's like the British in North America, searching for the big battle where they would crush us like bugs, and losing, in the process, Burgoyne's army and then Cornwallis's.

I'll bet Lowry and Kristol can trace their family trees right back to morons in London who supported George III. They probably do so with pride.

Posted by serial catowner | September 12, 2006 2:59 PM

The bottom line is this: More U.S. troops in Iraq would improve our chances of winning a decisive battle at a decisive moment.

This is great advice. Let's move our troops to al-Dien Bien Phu, where the Viet Minh Martyr Brigades will never be able to move their artillery, and we will have our decisive battle....

Posted by The Kenosha Kid | September 12, 2006 5:25 PM

I agree with the need for more troops. Almost all news stories that I've read show that when there are enough American troops in an Iraqi area, the area gets pacified. What happens is that we shift our guys out of the recently pacified area and then that area goes to hell again.

I think that there are several legitimate arguments against supplying new troops:

1) We don't have them--except with a draft. And a draft isn't in the cards.
2) Even if we did put in enough troops to pacify the situation, whenever they are withdrawn in the future, the fighting will renew among the various factions of Iraqi society. So it's useless to send the troops in the first place.

I don't know whether #2 is correct or not. Iraq could be inexorably heading for break up and anything we do is just pissing in the wind. Any thoughts?

Posted by travis a | September 12, 2006 7:06 PM

travis, I think it's the "pissing in the wind" comment that is the correct one. We are going to have as much success bringing a peace to Iraq as a coalition of French and British troops would have had bringing peace to the United States in the years 1861–1865.

Posted by moonbiter | September 13, 2006 3:29 AM

Okay, so when are Kristol and Lowry's children going to sign up? When are the Bush twins going to enlist in this noble effort? Heck, when are Republicans going to be willing to pay more taxes to finance this war?

I have a son who is joining the U.S. Army this week. I am very proud of him. This war is rapidly becoming much more than a debating point for my family and has been much more than a debating point for hundreds of thousands of families across the U.S.

Asking the questions I asked above doesn't detract from the service that my son will be performing for his country. It does, however, seem to make those who support this war but who don't advocate any personal sacrifice uncomfortable.

Posted by mrgavel | September 13, 2006 11:34 AM