[Dean's World] Ali Eteraz: Petraeus by the Numbers

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Ali Eteraz:
Petraeus by the Numbers
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1177559431.shtml


   Ariana:

     Now they are willfully ignoring Petraeus' blueprint for success --
     and acting like they are following it to a tee. His newly-minted
     counterinsurgency approach calls for a ratio of 25 soldiers per
     1,000 residents -- which would require 120,000 soldiers to provide
     the proper security for Baghdad, and roughly three times that
     amount for all of Iraq. But let's just focus on the 120,000
     soldiers that, according to the manual written by Petraeus -- "the
     expert on counterinsurgency," remember? -- are needed to secure
     Baghdad. Simply put: we're not even close to that number. And never
     will be. Even after all of the planned 21,500 additional troops are
     sent to the embattled capitol, there will still only be 85,000
     security forces there -- and that includes significant numbers of
     Iraqi security forces, whose readiness and loyalty have repeatedly
     proven to be unreliable at best.

     So Petraeus says it will take 120,000 soldiers to succeed. Instead,
     he's being asked to do it on the cheap -- and pretend that he's
     getting what he needs. And this is just in terms of troops.
     Petraeus' manual also says that a muscular military presence is
     just 20 percent of what is needed for a counterinsurgency effort to
     succeed -- the other 80 consists of establishing political and
     economic reform, two areas in which the United States is also
     failing miserably.

     Despite this, Petraeus, to his eternal discredit, is going along
     with the charade -- probably crossing his fingers behind his back
     -- and promising to let us know how it's really going sometime this
     summer. But we don't need to wait until sometime this summer. We
     can see the news, and count the bodies, and know for ourselves that
     this is all just another case of prolonging the inevitable, of
     asking more young men and women to die for a lost cause. For the
     first time since the war began, we've just had five straight months
     with 80 or more U.S. fatalities.

   This reminds me of my post: [1]a neo-con convinces me to leave iraq.

     I a) didn't want to go fight a war in Iraq, but b) once we ended up
     there, I felt we needed to c) leave the place better than we found
     it, and d) before leaving had to provide for the country, so that
     e) upon our leaving, the country didn't become a humanitarian
     sinkhole. That point e was the real kicker for me, and until very
     recently I was getting kicked by the progressive left for holding
     the position [Yglesias]. In other words, until two weeks ago, I was
     not ready to leave Iraq. Now, thanks to a Neo-Conservative writer,
     I am ready.

   I think its pretty clear that at this point Petraeus is not going to
   get 120,000 b/c public opinion won't let him. This is not like
   Leonidas in 300 where a few oligarchs blocked his action b/c America
   is a democracy, unlike Sparta. You must do the will of the majority;
   good or bad.

References

   1. http://eteraz.org/story/2006/12/26/141113/85