20,000 new troops = 20,000 new targets

That last post was pretty clearly a spleen vent even though I didn't label it as such. I hope no one was terribly disappointed when they realized that. One issue I didn't find a way to work in there was this whole troop surge idea. I've made mention of my thoughts on this before, but since it's the latest major national issue, I figured it was worth its own post. And since the president often refers to the redemption that history will afford him, I'll start with this summation of my opinion of the surge:

History will show it to be the most noticeable example of lip service to date in this war.

Back when Colin Powell was still part of the Bush administration, there was a lot of talk about this nation's recent success, when necessary, in using the doctrine of overwhelming force Powell advocated. Powell used it under Bush 41's command to successfully, and justly remove the Saddam-led Iraqis from Kuwait. Mission accomplished, quickly, neatly, with minimal loss of American life. With minimal American investment in any form, relatively speaking. Desert Storm was basically an exercise for our forces thanks to the overwhelming force mentality used in its execution. A slightly modified version of it was used successfully early on in Afghanistan, although it later had to be watered down even further to facilitate the invasion of Iraq.

That kind of overwhelming force may have worked to "stabilize" Iraq. (I'm done arguing over the need to stabilize Iraq). Powell recommended the use of such force. However, Bush and Rumsfeld knew better. Since we'd be greeted as liberators, we'd only need a handful of special forces troops to prime the pump, and then a hundred thousand or so follow up troops, no so much to maintain order, but just to monitor the flow once the statues were torn down.

OK, that didn't work out so well. Powell and a handful of others who were good enough for several previous administrations found that their opinions didn't matter and jumped ship, and no more silly talk of overwhelming force was ever mentioned again. Nope, only when things in Iraq continued their downward, objectiveless spiral, did we even admit that there might be a few flaws in the plan. Well, at least we've come that far. And the solution? 20,000 more troops?!

Throwing 20,000 more troops into the violent chaotic mess that Iraq was 2 years ago would barely have been noticeable anywhere except in the payroll records. My fear is that throwing them in there today will only be noticed by the increase in the number of troops becoming targets. A surge of 20,000 troops falls so far short of what anyone outside the White House would consider an overwhelming force, I can't help but wonder if it's anything more than a stubborn display of commitment to a cause fewer and fewer believe in anymore. (Especially since the "cause" has never really been delineated in any measurable, objective way.)

As long as we're committed to saving anything in Iraq, it should be the butts of our troops there. In order to do that we need to establish authoritative control. In order to even come close to establishing authoritative control, we'll need DOUBLE the number of troops on the ground there and in surrounding areas. If we're going to be there, we need overwhelming force.

I don't want to go back there at all. Before going, having been there, and since I've been home, I still haven't seen or heard a clear enough objective in order to justify any Americans being there, let alone ME being there, but as long as we're there we should really consider committing to whatever the latest cause is by committing some real power. Overwhelming power. The dems in Congress who oppose the 20k surge are opposing it for all the wrong reasons. The repubs who support it are just as wrong. Congress lost their clout when they shirked their responsibility to declare war and handed it over to the president in the first place.

We need to go big or get home and right now, it's not even safe enough to start getting our people home. I picture people climbing embassy walls in Saigon and I hear an updated version of John Kerry's question: "Who wants to be the last American soldier to die in Baghdad?" (not me) If we tried to leave amid the current level of violence and disorder, our troops would become instant targets and we, clearly, don't have the force on the ground there right now, or even 20,000 troops from now, to offer up any kind of guarantee of changing that.

Now, my plan for after we have established control is simple: orchestrate the biggest and fastest mass exodus of U.S. troops anyone has ever seen. That's right, I advocate doubling the number of troops in order to provide a brief window of order and then an immediate and complete withdrawal. Once we have a thousand troops on the ground for every hotspot in the country, the bad guys realize we are in fact serious, and things settle down, we begin an exit plan that makes the Berlin Airlift look like airplane rides at the county airport's open house. Logistics is the key to success in any international operation. Let's demonstrate our military superiority via a logistics display.

Once the doubled force has quieted the streets somewhat, we fly, drive and march every single U.S. troop out of Iraq with a target timeframe of 30 days or less. That way it's over before anyone even realizes something's going on. Troops can hang out in Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, UAE. Others can be flown to Spain, Germany, The Azores, England, Italy, anywhere there's a landing strip that will take us until phase two of the traveling begins. Leave your gear for the Iraqis to use in defending themselves. If every troop leaves the amount of gear I had to haul over there, there could be three or four airplane seats for every single soldier and gear that flew in.

Pulling out entirely does a number of things to increase Iraq's chances of survival. First, Americans back home will stop thinking we're at war WITH Iraq just because we're in Iraq. (I wore an Iraq Olympic Soccer jersey for Halloween last year and was amazed by the number of people who said, "why would you wear the enemy's jersey") and we could all go back to laughing at/feeling sorry for them instead of thinking we're fighting them. Second, once the "infidels/devils" are gone, the "terrorists" will have no reason to camp there in order to help purify the holy land. Third, our military budget could be used for military readiness and if Iraq really needed our help (like they did under Bush 41) we could do it quickly and decisively (like we did under Bush 41). I'm sure there are more reasons, but I don't even care about them... I just care about getting our troops out of there and back to work on matters of national interest. (like blowjobs, gay marriage and abortion) What kind of threat can we pose to Iran, Syria or North Korea given our success rate and overworking of troops in Iraq? The sooner we call that chapter closed, the quicker we can go back to believing in our superiority.

So write your congressmen (or -women) and tell them to add another zero to the number of troops we need in Iraq. It's the only way to be pro-American these days and it might even make a difference in some meaningful way. Or better yet, if you still think this war is a good idea, grab some buddies and head down to the local recruiting office. Tell them you'll sign up if they'll guarantee you'll be in Iraq by this summer.

Later dudes.