Leader of "Surge" Says Only 25% Chance of Success

[Dardedar]

DAR
Low expectations, that's the key.

According to this article (in the Oregonian), Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) was at a Republican conference defending his changed position on Iraq and specifically his opposition to the 'surge'. And in the course of defending himself he said that even Gen. Patraeus says the plan has only a one in four chance of success.

"If you're really going to do a surge, you don't do it with 20,000, you do it with 250,000," he said, noting that Baghdad is a city of nearly 7 million people. But he said the United States cannot afford such a response; instead it has to come from the Iraqi Army.

Smith said he recently spoke with Gen. David Petraeus, the new top military commander in Iraq, who told him the troop surge has only a one in four chance of succeeding."

Edited by Savonarola 20070305 2159: fixed link

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

It has less of a chance than that. With 1/10th of the troops necessary to give it even half a chance, this is just a surge into the meat grinder. Good thing China is more interested in owning us economically than attacking us militarily. The U.S. Army has been broken on Iraq.

[Dardedar]

DAR
This little rant from the KOS expands on the above:

***
Weeks, Not Months
by Hunter
Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 02:46:58 PM PST

"Let me try and make something clear to the Democratic members of the House and Senate. There's a world of hurt coming your way, and time is running out.

On Iraq, there are no more Friedman Units. There are no more acceptable six month windows to see if the same "plan", called a different name, will produce different results. The situation in Iraq continues to decay; the pressures on our armed forces and, especially, reserve forces continue to edge closer to the breaking point; our troops continue to be put in harm's way on the off chance not that a "plan" will work, but that an in-country miracle will occur.

The Bush administration has, in planning and execution of the Iraq war, failed at every turn, and on every level. There is no current plan, only a handful of adjusted troop rotations that we are now calling a "surge", even while our primary ally sends troops home. The military itself recognizes that the number of troops provided is completely insufficient for the task.

The administration, fearing being tarred with a failed and unnecessary war, has determined that the only way to avoid having the war be branded as failure after it ends is to simply make sure, for as long as possible, that it does not end. Large segments of the Republican Party, similarly fearing the political ramifications of failure more than they value either American or Iraqi lives, doesn't give a damn to either lead or follow. Both will block any attempt at a plan. Tough beans."

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Unfortunately, the Rs have a very good chance of prolonging this attempted occupation in the middle of a civil war. No matter what plan to stop the madness is brought forth by the House, Rs have enough members in the Senate to keep it from ever coming to a vote. Even if the Senate managed to force the vote, the Rs have too many Senators for the Dems to be able to override the executive veto. That is not an excuse for not trying. The Dems should continue to make very clear to the American people that they are trying to do what they were elected to to - and publicize the names of whoever votes against what they were sent to do. We need either a veto-proof Senate (which I don't really like because absolute power corrupts WHOEVER has it) or a Dem in the White House.