Escalation and Other Stuff

In today’s WSJ (Mission Baghdad -"Clear, hold and build" will take at least this many troops.):

Mr. Bush's words offered the hope that the new plan won't simply mean employing more troops to carry out a strategy that hasn't been working. Though widely described in the press as a troop "surge" or even "escalation," the number of additional soldiers being sent to Iraq is significant but not overwhelming. The real difference will be how America uses its troops in Iraq. Put in simplest terms, Mr. Bush seems finally to have decided that the way to defeat the insurgency is to protect the population, especially in Baghdad.

The media, in this case, are taking its cues directly from the Democrats. The Democrats are throwing around the word “escalation” quite freely to describe the President’s rather modest troop strength increase in Iraq. First came Teddy:

"The American people sent a clear message in November that we must change course in Iraq and begin to withdraw our troops, not escalate their presence," Kennedy said. "An escalation, whether it is called a surge or any other name, is still an escalation, and I believe it would be an immense new mistake. It would compound the original misguided decision to invade Iraq. We cannot simply speak out against an escalation of troops in Iraq. We must act to prevent it."

And last night, Kerry piled on:

John Kerry responded to Bush’s address to the nation tonight in interviews on NPR and ABC Radio. Kerry noted on NPR that Congress must act to stop Bush’s escalation of the war. Bush “gave no indication” tonight in his speech “that the troop increase would be short-lived.” (emphasis added)

The Lefty blogs have picked up on the escalation meme in a big way. It’s hard to find a Lefty blog that doesn’t beat this drum…loudly and often. Here are yet more examples: The “escalation” tag at dKos. Be careful here, because this way madness lies…

Here are the facts: There are now about 132,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Bush would raise that number to 153,500. By comparison, there were 133,000 US troops in Iraq as of 01 March 2006, down from about 160,000 in December 2005 during parliamentary elections. So we’re “escalating” the war by increasing troop levels to a point below what we used to have. Strange choice of words, that. It looks like Viet Nam all over again, eh? (/sarcasm)

We’re gearing up, the Brits are drawing down…from The Telegraph (UK):

Tony Blair will announce within the next fortnight that almost 3,000 troops are to be cut from the current total of 7,200, allowing the military to recover from four years of battle that have left it severely overstretched.

In what will be the first substantial cut of British troops serving in southern Iraq, their number will drop to 4,500 on May 31. The announcement will be made by the Prime Minister before he steps down from office as an intended signal of the achievements the British have made in Iraq — albeit at the cost of 128 dead.

There’s a tremendous difference in the security situation in the US and British areas of responsibility. Of the numerous facts and figures being thrown around about Iraq, the one that resonates with me the most is 80% of the violence in Iraq takes place within a 30-mile radius of Baghdad. So it doesn’t seem strange at all the Brits are drawing down: their sector is (relatively) stable. Additionally, one looks at the numbers quoted in the Telegraph article and wonders about being “overstretched” and the cost of the war, in terms of both lives and money. It’s all a matter of perspective, isn’t it?

Just sayin’…I thought the President’s speech last evening was pretty good; I’d give it a seven on a scale of ten. Minus points for all the hullabaloo leading up to the speech, i.e., I don’t see the proposed actions as a change in strategy, they’re more of a change in tactics. Plus points for Dubya’s acceptance of responsibility for “mistakes” in the conduct of the war, even though those mistakes weren’t enumerated (not that they needed to be, we know what they are). Best (apparent) news: a change in the rules of engagement that allow us and the Iraqi government to tackle both the Sunni and Shiite militias. It remains to be seen if al-Maliki’s government really means it. The initial indications are positive. But al-Maliki has given lip-service to disarming al-Sadr’s militia before, and worse, has protected him (and vice-versa) in the past. We’ll see…

Today’s Pic: A Chinese pagoda in Golden Gate park, SFO. July, 2000.