The Word of the Day
Is “dribble.” As in, the President plans to dribble an extra 20-30,000 American soldiers into Iraq over the next “six months to a year.” That means adding troops no faster than 5,000 men a month on average, and probably less. That’s drizzling on a bonfire, not flooding the zone. The word “surge” itself is a psyop, a domestic propaganda operation that deserves no respect. Stop using it. You’re just playing their game, and it’s a game for losers and dupes. Don’t play. Call things what they are.
Comment by Frank —
December 20, 2006 @ 9:01 am
Brutal. I love it!
Comment by Leonard —
December 20, 2006 @ 10:41 am
I do think it’s hilarious that adding 20% more American troops or whatever is seen as a “surge”. There are about 200000 total western soldiers there: Americans, Brits, mercenaries, etc. So, instead of one occupation soldier trying to control 144 Iraqis, when we “flood the zone”, each occupier only has to control 125! Oh!! That will work!
A surge would be adding, say, 2 million American troops. That would perceptively change the numbers. I still don’t think it would “work” – the Iraqis would just lie low, waiting for us to get tired of that kind of expenditure. But it would, at least, have a chance of making some sort of difference for a while. The proposed dribble won’t even blip the numbers.
Put another way: even though Western forces are very well armed and organized, they are still just 0.7% of the population of Iraq right now. Dribbling the zone may raise that — to 0.8%. Big deal.
Comment by Nell —
December 20, 2006 @ 11:17 am
The word “surge†itself is a psyop, a domestic propaganda operation that deserves no respect. Stop using it.
Preach, brother.
Comment by norbizness —
December 20, 2006 @ 12:56 pm
When they were talking about this operation, it wasn’t so much a “surge” as it was a “Serge,” or the character played by Bronson Pinchot in Beverly Hills Cop.
Comment by yave begnet —
December 20, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
I don’t know if this has been polled, but since the war is massively unpopular, it stands to reason that a substantial increase in troops would also be massively unpopular. While I think a substantial troop increase would lead to terrible outcomes for us and Iraq, it’s clear at this point that Bush doesn’t give a flying flute what anyone else thinks. If he wants to surge, then let him surge away. In 6 months he’ll be denying he ever used the word.
Comment by Davebo —
December 20, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
Yave
It has been polled twice recently. Public support for the Surge strategy is running between 11 and 12% right now.
Which means we’ll probably be seeing the dribble soon.
Comment by Ugh —
December 20, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
the character played by Bronson Pinchot in Beverly Hills Cop.
Would you like a lemon tweest?
Comment by Moe Blues —
December 20, 2006 @ 1:48 pm
Okay. So if we’re going to send in 5,000 troops a month to eventually reach the “surge” number of 150,000 to 160,000 troops, that means that soldiers who are already there cannot leave (it would sort of defeat the “surge”).
That, in turn, means we’re now going to have both active-duty and reserve soldiers looking at two-year stints in Iraq without coming home. For many thousands of Army and Marine personnel, they have already been effectively on station over there for 60 percent of the war. This will just make it oh-so-much better for them.
Any wonder that the military released its latest statistics on personnel suicide rates in Iraq yesterday–and announced that the rate was up 22%?
Comment by sglover —
December 20, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
When the talk turns to “surges” and “dribbles”, it’s a safe bet that either somebody’s going to get fucked, or some serious onanism is looming…..
Comment by David —
December 20, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
Really, this is about Bush’s belief that if he keeps using the word Surge, that Coca-Cola will bring back his favourite soda.
He just wants to Feed the Rush!
Comment by Rob —
December 20, 2006 @ 4:42 pm
Given that the Battle of the Bulge was the turnaround in the war for the Germans…
Hey, crazy idea! Next time lets follow a strategy that has worked before!
Comment by Mr. Obscura —
December 20, 2006 @ 5:28 pm
Me: I’d like that, if it’s not too much trouble.
Ugh: Of coorse not, don’t be stupeed.
Comment by Wild Pegasus —
December 20, 2006 @ 6:45 pm
I don’t know if this has been polled, but since the war is massively unpopular, it stands to reason that a substantial increase in troops would also be massively unpopular.
The majority of the people against the war don’t have any real principles. They’re against it because the US is getting the everloving shit kicked out of it. No one likes to root for a loser.
If the new dribble caused the US to start winning, it would become hugely popular. Instead, it’s like trying to bail out the Titanic with a thimble.
- Josh
Comment by Chris Bray —
December 25, 2006 @ 5:24 am
Also worth noting that a “surge” of 20,000 to 30,000 troops would likely produce a “surge” of 5,000 to 7,500 actual doorkickers, given the usual ratio of four support troops to every one combat soldier. And then 30,000 extra mouths to feed means more convoys out of Kuwait, so some of that number would have to guard the cheesecake out on MSR Tampa. And more raids and patrols means more detainees, so some of that number would have to do Lynndie England duty at some very crowded Army prison. And more troops means more and/or bigger forward operating bases, so some of that number would be stuck in gun towers and entry control points defending those FOBs. Calculate the U.S. military’s teeth-to-tail ratio against these “surge” numbers, and the whole exercise becomes even funnier. Or even sadder, whichever.