Althouse: "Postsurge."

August 18, 2007

"Postsurge."

A new word.

43 comments:

Brian Doyle said...: Well, "surge" was a new word too. Sending more troops used to be called escalation, but that didn't sound enough like an energy drink.; 8/18/07, 8:12 AM
vet66 said...: Michael You has coined a new word describing the Americans who stand between the AQI and the civilians; Al Ameriki.

Seems as how the surge has inspired the locals to refer to the Americans as a tribe, an endearing term. No word on what they refer to the leftist democrats who want to lose the war with no thought to the ensuing death and destruction.

Post-surge is meaningless in a war that radical Islam has declared around the globe. Yet another defeatist term from those thirsting for power who continue to refer to the GWOT as a bumper sticker war or police action.; 8/18/07, 8:43 AM
vet66 said...: Make that Michael Yon!; 8/18/07, 8:44 AM
Fen said...: Doyle: Well, "surge" was a new word too. Sending more troops used to be called escalation, but that didn't sound enough like an energy drink.

The surge is not just an escalation, its a different set of tactics. But I'm not surprised you're so ignorant about it, as your interest is limited to hoping it fails.; 8/18/07, 8:57 AM
kentuckyliz said...: "Postsurge" ... makes me think of the Wet Spot.; 8/18/07, 9:43 AM
reader_iam said...: Where are the cigarettes?; 8/18/07, 11:05 AM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: Who should be the postsurge child for this campaign?; 8/18/07, 12:33 PM
Eli Blake said...: Those of us who opposed the 'surge' pointed out then that we could not sustain it indefinitely (not when you have national guard members even being called for third tours of duty). We also argued that bogging more American troops down in a way which has only emboldened Iran (since they know we certainly don't have the ground troops avaliable to invade and occupy Iran anymore) was only likely to result in more American casualties (which it has) and when we left Iraq would be very much the same group of feuding mini-states it was before the surge.

In fact, the 'surge' was designed to do only one thing-- provide political cover for the Bush administration to run out the clock on the problem they chose to create in Iraq and hand the hard job of extricating America from this morass and rehabilitating our ability to accomplish anything either militarily or diplomatically off to the next President.; 8/18/07, 5:49 PM
blake said...: Those who predict doom in Iraq remind me of those who predict Democratic success in 2008. They're usually the same people, even.

I can't even predict the winning lottery numbers....; 8/18/07, 6:33 PM
Paddy O said...: Doyle, history isn't your strong suit, but still. "Surge" has been around for a goodly bit of time. Since the early 16th century in fact.

Appropriately used in fact, as meaning a flood, or any sudden strong increase. Escalation implies something different.

Though, I guess using the word escalation would better fit into your political narrative, a narrative in which 'facts' and 'meaning' was settled years ago. I bet if you look hard enough though you can find a Vietnam era quote using the word surge. Just have to want it! Or just make it up. It's all the same for the Narrative.; 8/18/07, 6:40 PM
Eli Blake said...: blake:

Of course you can't predict the winning lottery numbers. Lottery numbers are based on random chance and anyone who claims to have cracked the 'system' for them is a fraud.

On the other hand, many things can be predicted by examination of the facts and all information available. Hence some people routinely make the right business decisions or the right investment strategy or even the right baseball team to win the World Series by carefully analyzing all available data. Sometimes they are wrong but among the best at these things, they are more often right.

Before the Iraq war, there were those who predicted that it would turn into a quagmire that the U.S. would still be stuck in years later, and they were pooh-poohed. They were in the minority. But, they were right. So maybe they might be onto something.

As far as the 2008 elections, I make no predictions. I will just continue in my volunteer work on behalf of Democrats, with quiet confidence.; 8/18/07, 7:20 PM
Eli Blake said...: In fact, I actually believe that your attempt to portray the war as essentially a crapshoot is ridiculous. I've been quite critical of the Bush administration for failing to prepare or plan for what happened after the fall of Baghdad, for being overconfident, and most damning for ignoring the evidence that they had then that their plan was fatally flawed, and that they'd need 400,000 troops (more than double the 'surge' maximum) to prevent an insurgency.

But I've never compared going to war to a crapshoot. Real war isn't like a game, where you pick up the dice and roll to see if you win or lose.

Your view is an interesting insight into how the conservative mind sees warfare however. Maybe the problem is precisely that this war was planned by a bunch of frat boys whose view of war came from late night games of playing Risk in college.; 8/18/07, 7:52 PM
Mr. Forward said...: Eli Blake said "... that they'd need 400,000 troops (more than double the 'surge' maximum) to prevent an insurgency."

According to the Brookings Iraq Index there are 353,100 Iraqi security forces on duty and 173,508 Coalition forces. That's 526,608 total.

http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf; 8/18/07, 10:06 PM
blake said...: Eli,

Congratulations! You're the first person to ever claim I have a "conservative mind". Though I have been accused variously of being a conservative, a Republican (not the same thing!), a bleeding-heart liberal, a Democrat (not the same thing!), and a variety of other things, some of them even more unpleasant.

The problem with the facts and available information, as you put it, is you have to know exactly what the coverage is, and that's difficult (at best) without the sort of experimentation the real world doesn't often afford.

If a simulation showed a need for 400K troops, but was that the only simulation? Were dozens of simulations run? (I don't know but that's the way I'd do it.) Same with intel: When you're inundated by it, the trick is picking out the important data.

Anyway, I don't view warfare as a crapshoot--and for that matter, neither does a good Risk player. But what's going on in Iraq doesn't appear (to me) to be warfare, at least not in the traditional sense. The actual military campaign was, if anything, shorter than expected.

No, much like the coming election, what happens depends entirely on the hearts and minds of millions of people. Some, like Theo, will vote for the Democrat just because they're tired of the constant harping. Some others will vote for Nader or whoever, to make their point.

In Iraq, some will support the terrorists actively or passively, while some will support the government. It's really up to them what happens, though obviously we can influence (and apparently have) by making material efforts that show our seriousness. (With the meager information I have, I consider that a large part of our problem in Bush II's war stem from Bush I's betrayal the first time around. Which, by the way, I must reconcile with the consequences of the withdrawl some so deeply desire.)

I do not have your complete certainty that all is lost. This is not at all about randomity--even a carpshoot could be controlled if you understood and could control all the forces involved. It's about admitting that you don't know and cannot control all those forces.

"There are things I know and things I don't know."

I don't know the hearts and minds of the millions whose immediate fates rest on a positive outcome in Iraq. But this is not like a crapshoot either, which implies dice have been thrown and the impersonal forces of the universe will lead to one inexorable outcome.

But I was mostly just riffing on the earlier post about psychics. :-P~~~~; 8/19/07, 12:11 AM
Tim said...: "Postsurge" = Partisan Democrats admitting the facts on the ground in Iraq defeat their intention to hand victory to our enemies in Iraq while Bush is still president.

The Democrats and our enemies will have to wait until there is a Democrat in the White House to revive that hope.; 8/19/07, 9:44 AM
hdhouse said...: Isn't postsurge a synonym for "afterbush"?

Often defined at the dull bulb lighting the end of the tunnel.; 8/19/07, 11:09 AM
knox said...: In fact, the 'surge' was designed to do only one thing-- provide political cover for the Bush administration

Pretty telling that you'd see it in such purely political, venal terms.

You can enumerate all these reasons why you didn't want the US to go into Iraq; but the fact that so many democrats take absolutely no hope or encouragement from the recent positive news reveals that you want defeat. There's no other explanation for it.

It makes sense to be pessimistic when things were going so badly... but to continue so when things improve? It hurts your case, however reasoned you think it is.; 8/19/07, 1:12 PM
Fen said...: Before the Iraq war, there were those who predicted that it would turn into a quagmire.. they were right.

No. You and your kind were wrong. Calling it a disastrous quagmire etc etc doesn't make it so. Indulge your hyperbolic bloviations all you want, the reality on the ground in Iraq was never as bad as you hoped.

that the U.S. would still be stuck in years later, and they were pooh-poohed.

Where were you pooh-poohed? Every pro-war piece I read implied we were going to be there a decade at least. You've started to believe your own bullshit.

And the "postsurge" meme is just a fallback position for those who are invested in failure. Your side has been wrong about everything to date, why should we think you're arguing in good faith now?; 8/19/07, 2:50 PM
Fen said...: Eli: Those of us who opposed the 'surge' pointed out then that we could not sustain it indefinitely

Damn you are an idiot. WHO said we would sustain it indefinitely? How many hundreds of Strawmen is your side going to craft?

And how can you oppose anything when its so obvious that you don't even understand the subject matter? You oppose the surge but don't really know what it is...; 8/19/07, 2:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Active-Duty Troops In NYT OpEd: US Presence
"Has Robbed [Iraqis] Of Their Self-Respect"

Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, “We need security, not free food.”

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.; 8/19/07, 3:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Tim said..."The Democrats and our enemies..."

You're an idiot.; 8/19/07, 3:43 PM
Fen said...: NYT OpEd = total bullshit. I got better analysis from Pravda.

Tim said..."The Democrats and our enemies..."

Indeed. Too many Democrats are allying with the objectives of our enemies.; 8/19/07, 6:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Fen,
The OpEd was written by American soldiers, you moron.

Active-Duty Troops In NYT OpEd: US Presence Has Robbed [Iraqis] Of Their Self-Respect"

You get dumber by the minute.; 8/19/07, 6:44 PM
Fen said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/19/07, 6:53 PM
Fen said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/19/07, 6:53 PM
Fen said...: The OpEd was written by American soldiers, you moron.

I doubt it. At best, their comments were cherry-picked or distorted, like the Left routinely does. More Beauchamp bullshit.

Notice you didn't provide a link, weasel. Something to hide?; 8/19/07, 6:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Fen,
It's in the NEW YORK TIMES...OPINION SECTION.

See if that mini-brain of yours can figure out how to find it.

Do you take stupid pills or what?; 8/19/07, 6:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Fen,
Here is a list of the authors:

Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist.
Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant.
Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant.
Omar Mora is a sergeant.
Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant.
Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant.
Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.

Are these people our "enemies?"; 8/19/07, 7:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Fen,
Nothing to say about those traitorous American soldiers who authored the OpEd?

Gutless, as usual.; 8/19/07, 7:23 PM
Fen said...: Lucky: Nothing to say about those traitorous American soldiers who authored the OpEd?

Didn't say that, you did. What I said is odds are the NYTs distorted or cherry-picked what they said, as usual. In fact, I doubt their "soldiers" even exist. Basic TNR crap all over again.

Gutless, as usual.

No, "gutless" is failing to provide a link, for the 3rd time. Obviously you're hiding something.

Know what? Don't bother, I don't need to waste any time fisking a NYTs article - its always bullshit. And the fact that someone like you who's always ranting about "Faux" news would consider the NYTs to be a credible source is hysterical. Its a leftist propaganda rag, go soak yourself in it.; 8/19/07, 7:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Fern,
You're like a little kid.

You ask for the "link" to a New York Times OpEd that appears in TODAY'S PAPER...and you still can't find it.

Maybe if you'd attended high school instead of smoking crack...

Like I've said before: You refuse to believe anything you don't already believe.

That makes you more than stupid.; 8/19/07, 8:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Fern,
You're like a little kid.

You ask for the "link" to a New York Times OpEd that appears in TODAY'S PAPER...and you still can't find it.

Maybe if you'd attended high school instead of smoking crack...

Like I've said before: You refuse to believe anything you don't already believe.

That makes you more than stupid.; 8/19/07, 8:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Fern,
You're like a little kid.

You ask for the "link" to a New York Times OpEd that appears in TODAY'S PAPER...and you still can't find it.

Maybe if you'd attended high school instead of smoking crack...

Like I've said before: You refuse to believe anything you don't already believe.

That makes you more than stupid.; 8/19/07, 8:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Fern,
You're like a little kid.

You ask for the "link" to a New York Times OpEd that appears in TODAY'S PAPER...and you still can't find it.

Maybe if you'd attended high school instead of smoking crack...

Like I've said before: You refuse to believe anything you don't already believe.

That makes you more than stupid.; 8/19/07, 8:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Fen,
Maybe if you read it three times...; 8/19/07, 8:08 PM
Fen said...: Still no link from the Leftist coward. What are you hiding Lucky?

Did you just make the NYTs story up? Put up the link or STFU. Copperhead weasel.; 8/19/07, 8:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Fen,
Even YOU can't be this fucking stupid. It's in the NYT's...TODAY.

But...considering the fact that you ARE actually this stupid:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?ex=1345176000&en=5a8349a0e944e61b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Now...do you know how to navigate from here?

DUH.; 8/19/07, 8:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Fen,
Find it yet, dipstick???; 8/19/07, 8:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Fen,
Found it, didn't you?

And now you're trapped.

What a pea-brain.; 8/19/07, 9:20 PM
Fen said...: Now I see why you were afraid to link to it.

Its just a summary, with no direct quotes, a bunch of soldiers names added as "authors". Sorry, but the NYTs needs to prove these guys actually exist, are actual combat vets coming out of Iraq, and that they actually wrote this, before I'll bother to believe it.

Until then, its just another bunch of lefty propaganda bs, from a paper with as little credibility as TNR. I hope you didn't swallow.; 8/19/07, 9:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Fen,
You are dumb as a fucking stump.

The OpEd has been discussed on every news show and newspaper in the country since being published...including
Hardball, Tucker, Hannity, Limbaugh, CNN, etc.

This is the standard; "I don't want to believe it, so it can't be true" bullshit you throw out every day of the week.

You really need to educate yourself before commenting.; 8/20/07, 5:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Fen,
Sorry, I forgot to address your inane comment that "Its just a summary, with no direct quotes..."

It's a full two page OpEd, listing all of the soldiers who authored the piece.; 8/20/07, 5:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Roadside Bomb Kills Second Iraqi Governor In Nine Days; 8/20/07, 8:47 PM