Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jan 10, 2007 in At TMV | 3 comments

Center of Attention

balance.gif

Extra attention to a few Centrist blogs:

Amba on the meaning of the word ‘surge’. Sadly, for Amba at least, U.S. President George W. Bush will not use the word ‘surge’ but instead an ‘increase of troops’. Dang.

David Adesnik favors a ‘surge’. He tries to explain why. After reading his post, I’m still wondering why he supports it. After reading David’s post, go read QandO: Surge Math. It’s a good read

Tom in Texas at Balloon Juice: a friend of Tom recently joined the army and, then, “asked to be assigned to the front lines” (Iraq). Instead, they “designated him a medic” because he was convicted on “DWI charges a few years ago”. Tom is “encouraged by this”, others – in the comment section – disagree.
Your thoughts?

Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings on the treatment of Jose Padilla. If completely accurate, way over the line and, to put it more strongly, simply horrible..

Brad DeLong: 20 000 extra troops? Whatever happened to the 50 000 as proposed by the 3K’s (Keane, Kagan and Kristol)? And… 20 000, a surge or wave?

Mathew at Centerfield on Romney, Lieberman-McCain and Giuliani: a 2008 Update.

Dick Polman on Bush’s credibility problem regarding Iraq.

Ron Beasley on the law designed to “privatize Iraq’s vast oil resources”.

And that was your Center of Attention for today, Wednesday January the 10th, 2007.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2007 The Moderate Voice
  • ES

    The 10 or 15 to 1 ratio of good guys v. bad guys does not mean all the good guys have to be front line troops. I think that total troop number should include the support folks that will fix the broken down equipment, communication, intelligence, civil affairs, services, and so forth. Even with a ratio of 15:1, that does not guarentee a victory.

    The Q and O blog entry is pretty good. Just one comment though about the insurgency – just because the US wants to esculate the conflict in where the insurgents will somehow leave their ratholes to engage in a pitch battle, that does mean is going to happen. The Shia insurgents have a different strategic plan than say the Sunni insurgents, which is different than the AQ groups. One plan to wipe out all of the various insurgents is not going to work, unless all of them are stupid. What is going to happen is to be there in Iraq for the long run and keep the pressure up to make the insurgents lose will to fight – either through attrition, good counter-insurgency planning to undermine their grievences, loss of popular support, or they just give up.

  • Rudi

    The Padilla torture is CRIMINAL. The mental torture in combination with hallucinogenic drugs wasn’t used for a ‘truth serum’, it was to induce more mental torture and probably caused his mental illness. I hope the Wingnuts are proud that we have joined the ranks of USSR and Eygpt in the torture club.

  • grognard

    ES, good point, our being in the ‘hood does not mean we get into a fight. The Mahdi Army may not have the discipline to keep some members of that organization from attacking us but after a few casualties the message to hunker down will get through. The Sunnis would be smart to do the same thing, we will see. With the Kurds in the north and the Badr Brigade/SCIRI in the south there should be no problems, but what happens when we leave? My question is what do we do if we find one of the Sadr controlled government ministries engaging in ethnic cleansing?

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com