I have absolutely no idea what the people advocating for "one last push" in Iraq, with an influence of however many additional troops can be temporarily "surged" into Baghdad are thinking. One last push for what? A higher troop concentration in some particular area might get whatever disfavored elements are around to lie low or head elsewhere for a while, but it's not as if we're going to have the mapower to go house-by-house through Iraq and scrub the country of weapons. The various armed factions in Iraq are far too embedded, socially and politically, in the fabric of Iraqi society. This just seems like a desperation pundit play to avoid admitting that the "left" position -- we should leave Iraq -- is, in fact, the correct one.
« Reporting, Please | Main | Iran: It's Back »
One! Last! Push!
19 Nov 2006 03:51 pm
Comments (43)
Why is "one last push" any better than a time-line?
The feature of time-lines that people always decry is that by announcing a time-line, you tell your
enemy just how long it needs to wait to win.
Well, by announcing "one last push", you do the same. You're telling them: just hold us off or
wait us out for "one last push", and then you've won.
Might as well announce a time-line; at least it puts the schedule in our control.
As far as I can tell, Bush has realized that Iraq is lost. He has realized that some sort of
partial pullback, perhaps to Kurdistan, is the only thing our troops can do, given the level of
troops he provided to our forces. And Bush is really just running out the clock, trying to pass
off the problem to McCain or some Democrat.
He's coddling his vanity, and it's the troops that will die for it. Forty-four American troops
killed already this month. And "one last push" that we all know from the outset is just going
through the motions.
Unspeakably sad.
You guys are being too rational about this. Republicans don't think. They feel. And what they chiefly feel right now is fear of failure, more specifically, fear that they will be held responisble for their faiure. It's entirely in character that they would try a show of might--it's the most brainless option and allows them to vent frustration.
One last push for what?
Listen to Gen. Zinni:
Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.
Listen to Gen. Batiste (he also of the "fire Rumsfeld" crew from a few months back):
Before considering troop reductions, General Batiste said, the United States needs to take an array of steps, including fresh efforts to alleviate unemployment in Iraq, secure its long and porous borders, enlist more cooperation from tribal sheiks, step up the effort to train Iraq’s security forces, engage Iraq’s neighbors and weaken, or if necessary, crush the militias.
Indeed, General Batiste has recently written that pending the training of an effective Iraqi force, it may be necessary to deploy tens of thousands of additional “coalition troops.” General Batiste said he hoped that Arab and other foreign nations could be encouraged to send troops.
I'd love to see Matthew tell Zinni to his face that Zinni's statement is just a "desperation pundit play". Maybe Matthew can set THAT up for his next bloggingheads.tv appearance.
The biggest problem with the "one last push" theory is that it still doesn't address the core problem. It is a push at.. what, exactly? The troops have won everything they've fought for. They've never been defeated. They have NEVER LOST. And yet the situation is completely, but completely, fucked up. How is this going to be solved by any number of pushes?
Yes, one last push. The fetus can't survive without heroic measures, faces a tragic few hours of life and incredible pain during that period.
But we must push it out, to satisfy some unfeeling bastards. Afterwards, they'll say it died because the Left wasn't heroic enough.
They can't admit their own failures, so they'll insist on more pain, more death, and ultimately pass the buck to the non-delusional who recognize it's time to abort, so others may heal.
A few more troops to minimally maintain order in Baghdad and weaken Sadr while the Air Force brings the B-52s to carpet-bomb Anbar province and other Sunni areas. Hakim has been asking for months. Kinda a "final solution" to the sectarian problem.
Was gonna use the AF for Iran, but that is nixed, so it is available for ethnic cleansing.
On the face of it trying a reality based strategy after the failed fantasy based strategies sounds kind of reasonable. What I see as the danger of this is that little scraps of progress swirling in the gale of failure will be grasped as reasons to continue. Without prior metrics to define what constitutes success, this will just be the first of a long series of new justifications for staying the course.
From the standpoint of the GOP there are two outcomes to "one last push" and both are satisfactory. The first possibility is that it forces the Dems to stop things. The Dems were right about Vietnam and as a result the GOP was able to convince the electorate that the Dems couldn't be trusted on issues of war and peace ever again. In the best case by utilizing the "one last push" strategy the GOP will be extricated from the decision making process on Iraq and will be able to claim that the Nancy Pelosi stabbed the troops in the back. Even if the first possibility doesn't succeed in getting the Dems to end the Iraq adventure it will get everyone past the next election. Matt, Atrios and others correctly take some Dems to task for not formulating an Iraq policy. The GOP Iraq policy is however more cynical. Its simply to delay, call those that argue for a change in course unpatriotic, and hope that peace breaks out.
The one thing that won't work for the Bush adminstration now is an objective look at the situation on the ground. They have to avoid that at all costs.
Gee, Al, if SOMEBODY could have told him that to his face he wouldn't have to squander his credibility trying to cover for the complete failure of the political arm to manage the occupation.
The military component is long done. Mission Accomplished! Mission Uncomplished has been a nation building exercise mismanaged for years, and it has failed exactly as any Republican initiative fails: greed, arrogance, ignorance, and hubris. Putting Young Republicans and low level think tank staffers, as well as the suite of business weasel crooks, in charge of creating a nation there is an atrocity.
Halliburton, however, is happy to take the money not to do the jobs Rumsfeld says the army doesn't do anymore, so Cheney can say "Stay the course!" while Bush goes to Vietnam, where his public dumbness will make the Vietnamese fear democracy for good.
The army can have all those troops and a pony as soon as the Young Republicans and Peter Beinarts show up at the recruiting station. Carl Levin isn't stopping them yet and we're waiting.....
claim that the Nancy Pelosi stabbed the troops in the back.
How did we get to the spot where "no longer being shot at" = "being stabbed in the back?" It's only a somewhat flippant question. Are we supposedly stabbing in the back those who are already dead? For a bunch of people who supposedly understand business is there really no one in the GOP who understands what "sunk costs" means?
My imaginary 20,000 troops can kick your imaginary 20,000 troops' collective asses.
It's just a symptom of the prevalent conviction, conscious or not, that America doesn't/can't lose wars. That if we just try hard enough, we can finally have a ticker tape victory parade.
Put it up for a vote in Congress...with a rider that says that anyone who votes for "one last push" must send one of his or her children to Iraq as a soldier. Not as a secretary or some other bullshit; but as a boots-on-the-ground soldier. If the politician doesn't have a child, then a grandchild goes. No grandchild? Then a niece or nephew. No niece or nephew? Then the politician goes.
If you vote for it, you have to help supply the infantry. That's the deal.
We'll see how many people vote for it.
What happens if we "win"? Our Iranian enemies are strengthened, and Iraq's oil is in the hands of people who not only have antithetical views to ours, they're enshrined in power with our blessing and blood. That's a "win".
And that's not the beauty part.
The beauty part is that Republicans will crow about it for eternity.
Let's not do it and say we did. Then can we go home?
I don't have a problem with one last push, if it really is one last push, but it seems each last push simply leads to another one last push and another, and another, without end. The last push really has to be the last push, and if those advocating for a last push, collectively, fail, and then don't advocate for immediate withdrawal that needs to have consequences. One consequence could, and should, be forever being marginalized by the media. No more public appearances for you, ever. Another might be complete ridicule by their peers. DEmotions at work (if you are in the sort of business where you are supposed to be an expert on this subject). Since no penalties seem to occur for continually advocating more "one last push"es after previous "one last push"es so obviously and siastrously failed I have to say I am not in favor of any more "one last push"es. The last "last push" was the last. The previous one was already too many. Now it is time to get out. Those advocating "one last push" will continue to do so till doomsday because they face no penalties for advocating that and clearly face a significant loss of face for admitting they have failed and were wrong, but that is not our problem. Our problem is how best to get out in the fastest possible time.
Yes, when we get out the situation will get worse. Let's not kid ourselves. Getting out will cause disasters in teh region. But there won't be any MORE disasters from getting out then from staying in, and at least we will be able to say that, however long we spent there, making the problems worse, rather then better, we finally agreed to get out so that WE weren't the ones making it worse ourselves. Small comfort, I know, but better then the alternative.
Actually, I think this is a good thing. Stress the "one last" piece, rather than the "push".
One Last Push = a way to blame the democrats. If the new Democratic majority in congress doesn't authorize 'one last push' then they will be blamed for losing the 'war' in Iraq.
I'd love to see Matthew tell Zinni to his face that Zinni's statement is just a "desperation pundit play". Maybe Matthew can set THAT up for his next bloggingheads.tv appearance.
You know, Al, I'd love to see you say that to Yglesias's face, while Yglesias was standing in front of Zinni. Then I'd like to see you dance the can-can,in one of those hoop dresses. Maybe in red.
. . . weaken, or if necessary, crush the militias.
In other words, provoke a Shi'ite insurgency, after failing to defeat the Sunni one.
Well, SCMT, since I agree with Zinni, and Matthew seems to think Zinni's proposal is merely a disingenuous "desperation pundit play", why would it be interesting to see me tell it to Matthew's face in front of Zinni?
I guess, as a result of his proposal to increase the number of troops, Zinni has been cast out of the Reality-Based Community(TM). Oh well. Another one bites the dust.
I suppose I shouldn't have personalized the matter by saying that, though. Sorry.
Phrase: "One last push."
Translation: "One last chance to punish and revenge ourselves on anyone in the country who has made our life difficult and who (since we are leaving) we can now kill indiscriminately under the cover of 'helping them one more time'."
Matt:
I've been against the war from the outset.
I don't believe "one last push" will win the war. I don't believe the war is "winnable."
But, please, I appeal to your reason -- you must understand that withdrawal would have catastrophic consequences. The American Left and the Democratic Party *must* understand this.
I believe this is a point of grave importance. Yes, we must be pursuing an exit strategy. But a sudden withdrawal would leave a vacuum, lead to chaos and murder on an unprecedented scale, and suit Iran's imperial ambitions.
I urge common sense and reason in this discourse. Please, hear me out.
Maybe we should bomb Cambodia again too.
"But a sudden withdrawal would leave a vacuum, lead to chaos and murder on an unprecedented scale, and suit Iran's imperial ambitions."
A fast withdrawal is, in practice, the only kind possible.
"Phased withdrawal" tests well in focus groups, but is impractical.
1) Once withdrawal starts, the troops are less able to defend themselves, more vulnerable to casualties.
2) Once we are obviously getting out, no one will wish to be among the last few dieing in a lost cause - thus pressure to get the withdrawal over with.
Zinni's going to advocate more troops in the same way that a carpenter will recommend a chisel and mallet. What's your excuse, Al?
al:
Send both Zinni and Batiste to me. I'll be glad to tell them to their faces.
I'm a bit surprised at Zinni but not really shocked. One rough similarity between Vietnam and Iraq is that so many general officers, both retired and active duty, are completely delusional. Their suggestions, except for the jobs creation, are a rehash of what we've been doing. Job creation is only possible in a stable environment that we are UNABLE to achieve. I'll spare you the reminder that Bush's Heritage Foundation Kiddie Corps ruined the employment picture when they eliminated those 'socialistic' state industries.
So al, send 'em.
>I have absolutely no idea what the people advocating for "one last push" .... are thinking.
What they always think: "That always works in the movies." It's, sadly, just that simple. And they are, sadly, just that simple-minded.
>and suit Iran's imperial ambitions.
Er, yeah. King Darius is just waiting to seize the opportunity.... talk about being as carefully uniformed on the subject as possible, I guess that's Concern Troll 101 though.
Al's comment is very revealing of his psychology. Since liberals often speak as if Zinni's on "our team," that means we must always agree with him. That seems to go a long way to explaining why he lets Bush put cigars in his sandy vagina.
One last Putsch to string this out until '08! Wage political war at home vs. the peaceniks.
How about a "Look -- over there!" strategy? We ask Kim Jong-Il to threaten to invade South Korea. That requires immediately redeploying all our troops to Korea for, oh, a year, and drives Iraq out of the headlines. Kim doesn't invade, we give him some cookies, everybody declares victory. Then we just quietly bring all the troops home. Iraq? What Iraq?
I think the "one last push" is the one that finally puts the head so far up the ass that no outside input is audible at all, any longer.
"We need just one more big push to break through and win. Our troops are of fine quality and specially trained for this sort of war."
"This is not war, sir, it is slaughter."
"Nonsense! One final battle! Superior morale! Bombardment! We must break through!"
- Oh! What a Lovely War
Here is a pertinent article, summarizing leaks from the Pentagon study group.
http://tinylink.com/?eeuw5VHHql
We absolutely cannot win with "one last push." And if that's the best option the Republicans are putting on the table, they should be jailed for reckless endangerment of our national security. "One last push" is not a plan, it's a sick joke.
If it's remotely possible to stabilize Iraq, it can only be achieved with three things:
1) New executive branch leadership.
2) Significant tax hikes--enough to cause real public pain.
3) The draft. We probably need between half a million and a million trained infantry to stabilize Iraq (and the number's growing). And we need to be able to deploy that number for years, not for "one last push".
I say the Democrats up the ante: Tell Bush to make his "one last push" where the sun doesn't shine, and then offer a million troops (and tax hikes to fully fund them), on the condition that we get new military leadership.
Hell, hold a public referendum, and let the American people see how stark the options really are. But if all the right wing offers is 20k more troops for a few months, pull the plug now. We can't win this without a draft. (Of course, we may not be able to win it with one.)
Polls show support for a draft around 25%, and support for the war itself below 50%. How can anyone believe a draft is a serious possibility? Realization that the war can't be won without it would drive down the popularity of the war rather than raising the popularity of the draft. Any Congress that voted for it would be massacred in the next election, and implementation would meet significant resistance, passive and active.
One-last-push! It's like having a baby! Only, in this case- it's Rosemary's baby.
If we don't make one last push then the last push will have failed. If we now gird our loins and make one final push victory will be ours. Failing that, all that will be required for victory is one last push.
In a series of n last pushes for victory, as n approaches infinity, victory can be no further away than infinity-n. Q.E.D.
It's a corollary of Italo Svevo's analysis of the last cigarette in his novel Zeno.
If these people weren't so powerful and implacable I'd find their historical illiteracy comical. They resuscitated Vietnam catchphrases and propaganda tactics in talking about Iraq, they fantasized about Bush being Churchill (the only similarities being alcohol and impotence) and now this "Push" crap sounds like Haig before the Somme.
I guess this is because the pervasiveness of militaristic and neoconservative propaganda extends to publishing Serious Books. Conservatives, out of a sense of inferiority, I assume, have this strange pretension to intellectualism, which results in this superficial acquaintance with History.
Oh, I know that draft is hideously unpopular. But if the American public isn't asked to face that fact--and reject the draft firmly--we'll have to listen another 30 years of coulda-shoulda from the Republicans.
Comments closed December 03, 2006.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Jeez, even Kenneth "Cakewalk" Adelman seems to have given up on one last push and has moved on to finger pointing. Being a neocon means never having to say you're sorry. Kicking a friend when he’s down and out (of the Defense Department): Not that the Donald Rumsfeld doesn't deserve it, but with old friends like Kenneth Adelman portraying him as totally delusional, who needs enemies?
Posted by Madison Guy | November 19, 2006 3:59 PM