The Magic 20k

David Brooks gives us a pretty standard surge narrative:

For over three years, President Bush sided with the light-footprint school. He did so for personal reasons, not military ones. Casey and Abizaid are impressive men, and Bush deferred to their judgment.

But sometimes good men make bad choices, and it is now clear that the light-footprint approach has been a disaster. If the U.S. had committed more troops and established security back in 2003, when, as Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek recently reminded us, the Coalition Provisional Authority had 70 percent approval ratings, history would be different.

So, given all that, would adding troops now help? "Many in and out of the administration think so, hence all the talk about a surge — putting 20,000 more troops into Baghdad, finally occupying the dangerous neighborhoods, finally starting a jobs program, finally forcing national reconciliation." Brooks actually thinks it's too late for this. Instead, we should combine a surge with "giving up the dream of national reconciliation and acknowledging that Iraq is in the process of dividing itself" and "using adequate force levels (finally!) to help those who are returning to sectarian homelands. It would mean erecting buffers between populations where possible and establishing order in areas that remain mixed."

A bunch of questions arise. Is it really plausible that the difference between a stable democratic Iraq and the current mess is whether or not there were 20,000 more troops there in 2006? Note that 20,000 just coincidentally happens to be the number of troops currently logistically available for a surge. The standard "more troops" doctrine has always maintained that the initial occupation force should have included 400,000-500,000 troops, not 20,000 more troops. It's just too trivial a number to make a real difference (except, of course, to the people who will see their deployments extended, to those who die on extended deployments, to their wives, children, husbands, etc.).

What's more, almost four years into the war, if Bush is about to implement yet another new strategy and Brooks thinks that strategy is doomed to fail, isn't it time to just give up on the war? To stop offering further helpful suggestions? Why is Brooks so nanchalant about the wastage of lives looming in what he acknowledges is a doomed military escalation.

Comments

Maybe the neocon nonchalence about the Iraq escalation has to do with their understanding that it's a sideshow to the planned main event. Here's something for Congressional committees to ask the White House about: Has U.S. given tacit approval for an Israeli nuclear strike against Iran? That seems to be the gist of a report in London's Sunday Times today headlined "Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran." Kind of puts a whole new spin on the Iraq escalation thing.

Posted by Madison Guy | January 7, 2007 2:47 PM

He did so for personal reasons, not military ones. Casey and Abizaid are impressive men, and Bush deferred to their judgment.

Wow, Brooks is a jerk.

Posted by Matt Weiner | January 7, 2007 2:50 PM

"Why is Brooks so nonchalant about the wastage of lives looming in what he acknowledges is a doomed military escalation?"

Well, it could be because he's a morally bankrupt apologist for war criminals as well as a complete and total hack. That would be my guess.

Posted by Farinata X | January 7, 2007 2:59 PM

What FX said.

Posted by ran | January 7, 2007 3:01 PM

Playing along with Brooks for a moment, it's pretty amazing that the event which caused Bush to realize that the old strategy wasn't working was not anything that happened on the ground in Iraq, but the fact of the Democrats winning the election.

If the Republicans had (somehow) won a crushing victory, does anyone seriously think Bush would be rushing to propose a "surge" plan right now?

Posted by Steve | January 7, 2007 3:12 PM

Well, it could be because he's a morally bankrupt apologist for war criminals as well as a complete and total hack. That would be my guess.

Yep.

Brooks needs to enlist. God knows the age standards have been stretched so that he can probably make the cut. And even if he is too old, he's got connections, he can get in uniform if he really wants to. Smilin' Billy Kristol ought to be visiting a recruiter, too.

Posted by sglover | January 7, 2007 3:22 PM

"If the Republicans had (somehow) won a crushing victory, does anyone seriously think Bush would be rushing to propose a "surge" plan right now?"

Well, there's a cause and effect issue there -- if the war was going well, the GOP might have won, so the surge wouldn't be "necessary" (blech), whereas because the war is well past awful, the Dems win, and the surge is "necessary".

Of course, the escalation isn't necessary to achieve any meaningful military objective, only to prevent the Bush administration and the people who supported this war from seeing soulless monsters in the mirror every morning. Just a bit longer....

Posted by John | January 7, 2007 3:37 PM

Why is Brooks so nonchalant about the wastage of lives looming in what he acknowledges is a doomed military escalation?

Because he is an evil cynical hack.

Another episode simple answers etc etc

And obviously Bush "listened" to Casey because he had fired a bunch of Generals who said there had to be a large occupying force ... were those not good men? Was it maybe bad to not listen to them when they were the generals in charge for a reason?

Posted by Ottoe | January 7, 2007 3:40 PM

Note that 20,000 just coincidentally happens to be the number of troops currently logistically available for a surge

I read on the Interweb that it's actually only 9,000.

Posted by live | January 7, 2007 4:14 PM

How would history have been different? The Iraqi's all of the sudden wouldn't want to fight each other?! The only historical difference is a bunch more elementary schools would have new paint and 20,000 more US troops would be harms way.

Posted by Fred. F. | January 7, 2007 4:57 PM

What's that in percentages? 15% more?

Sorry, I don't see how 15% more troops will magically solve this. We're supposed to believe: "stay the course 15% more and we'll win!"

Posted by anonymous | January 7, 2007 4:57 PM

This is the second time this week where I've read an account by a chastened hawk trying to redifine the surge before it is officially announced. Both writers are deeply skeptical about the military wisdom of the surge. But instead of simply saying that the administration should not do it, they seem to be trying to manufacture a graceful political climbdown for the administration by making up some new mission for the surge on the fly.

My guess is that Field Marshall Brooks has absolutely no idea about the best military steps to take in order to "help those who are returning to sectarian homelands" and is just reaching for some plausible-sounding mission that will let Bush have his little surge without calling for an actual escalation in the war.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 7, 2007 5:16 PM

"Why is Brooks so nanchalant about the wastage of lives looming in what he acknowledges is a doomed military escalation."

Because, althought they'll take the tax cuts, no child of his will ever serve, cf. Bush, Jenna and Bush, Barbara.

Posted by Pudentilla | January 7, 2007 5:19 PM

The whole invasion was predicated on doing it without the help of Lots of Nations, which is where you were going to get the 400,000 troops you needed, otherwise. Brooks is trying to exculpate Dear Leader. I seem to recall eager statements, direction even, from the Administration that a big force wasn't necessary. It wasn't about bein' nice to the locals. It was counterproductive. The idea that there would need to be an army of occupation larger than the army of conquest was ridiculed. If you needed a big army, you weren't going to be able to invade. Hence, you really didn't need a big army, because the invasion was absolutely necessary and we were all gonna get ponies.

Posted by Brian C.B. | January 7, 2007 6:23 PM

Why are Americans so nonchalant about the wastage of Iraqi lives looming in what they acknowledge will be the bloody to genocidal sectarian breakup of Iraq?

Posted by novakant | January 7, 2007 6:29 PM

I seem to recall eager statements, direction even, from the Administration that a big force wasn't necessary.

Certainly. That's why Brooks is such a jerk; he's trying to pass the blame from the White House to the generals, when he knows full well it's not so. Bush deferred to Casey and Abizaid's judgment, forsooth!

Posted by Matt Weiner | January 7, 2007 7:05 PM

"help those who are returning to sectarian homelands"

Indeed. I guesss the Sunni Arabs migrated to Baghdad, umm, 1000 years ago?

Evil to the core.

Posted by bob mcmanus | January 7, 2007 9:36 PM

Well, my "constructive" ideas on Iraq, with the caveat that I don't actually know anything, are:

1. no more patrols, no more seek and capture/seek and destroy combat missions.

2. all the troops and staff vacate the Green Zone, as much as possible, leaving it for the Iraqi leadership, Iraqi staff and Iraqi soldiers.

3. With all the troops in Iraq hunkered down in big bases that are not the green zone, it's possible that that in some neighborhoods and municipalities, the relevant local leaders might request the presence of coalition troops in order to provide protection. If such local Iraqi leaders make the request, then our military people will consider the request, and help out to the extent possible.

4. some sort of amnesty for militia/insurgents who agree to make sort of move in the direction of not killing innocent people. But this is really the Iraqi leadership's business, not ours.

5. technology, economic & humanitarian aid, etc.

Now it's a possibility that Bush/Cheney will never implement any of these ideas, or any other unconservative ideas which might reduce American casualties and regain American moral credibility, unless their political survival somehow depends on reducing American casualties and regaining American moral credibility.

I'm tempted to say that gross negligence, substantial and continuing corruption, and willful, repeated refusal to admit error and face facts are impeachable offenses, but I stop short of this, because it seems to me that to impeach and threaten to impeach will not achieve any of our goals, and will just further polarize progressives and conservatives without accomplishing anything worthwhile in return for the extra polarization.

We don't have the media, we don't have much control or influence over certain key levers of the economy, we're just not strong enough to do it, (i.e. force a change in Iraq policy) yet.

Posted by roublen | January 7, 2007 10:59 PM

The point of any Bush strategy isn't to end the war but to prolong the war. 400,000 troops in 2003 would have ended the war too soon. 20,000 troops now will just lead to other options later on. 20,000 more? Reduce but redeploy later? Etc.

War is the reason for war.

That fatuous, cynical creep.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | January 8, 2007 9:01 AM

Doctor Sam (who also has a neice and/or nephew): Well, the knee surgery didn't go too well. We're going to have to redo it.

Patient Iraq: What?! Of course not, you idiot. You tried to perform knee surgery with a sledgehammer.

Dr. Sam: Right, so admittedly, we made some mistakes at first. In fact, you probably would have been better off if we hadn't tried to fix your knee, but now that what's done is done...

Iraq: For the love of god, let me out of here! I don't consent to any further treatment! Stop!

Dr. Sam: ... as I was saying, I have an obligation to fix things. So I'm going to redo the knee surgery. This time, though, I'll use a bigger sledgehammer!

Iraq: Aaaaaaargghh! You're just going to screw my knee up more! Let me go!

Dr. Sam: Although perhaps if the redo of the surgery doesn't work, we'll have to amputate your limbs.

Iraq: No! Please! Just leave me alone!

Dr. Sam: I just don't get why my patients are so ungrateful. Odd, isn't it?

Posted by Julian Elson | January 8, 2007 10:13 AM

Some times it actually makes a difference to look at the facts.

In 2005 there were 183,000 coalation troops in Iraq.

In 2006 that fell to 157,000 troops, or 25,000 less.

So if we "surge" 20,000 troops in 2007 we will have
167,000 troops in Iraq in 2007, or 5,000 fewer then in
2005.

Posted by spencer | January 8, 2007 12:05 PM

I'm going to note the irony and invoke another Brooks: adding manpower to a late project makes it later. Albert Brooks was talking about software development, but I think the same model holds here.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 8, 2007 3:08 PM

Remember how the White House has been at pains to get off the hook for illegal activities ? ( The Torture Troupe ? )
Try this on for size. The President has limited authority to prosecute a war on his own hook. Iraq is into overtime.
Ask for escalation. Voila. No matter what success this has, you have distracted attention from the fact that the "war" is illegal because it is not properly authorized. Chances are you can represent lack of censure at the time of review as implying retroactive authorization.

Posted by opit | January 8, 2007 11:49 PM