Previous posts
What gives you the right to fuck with our lives: C... What gives you the right to fuck with our lives: CCVI What gives you the right to fuck with our lives: CCV What gives you the right to fuck with our lives: CCIV What gives you the right to fuck with our lives: C... into you like a train go easy, step light, stay free What gives you the right to fuck with our lives: CCII What gives you the right to fuck with our lives: CCI What gives you the right to fuck with our lives: CC Saturday, February 17, 2007
up to your neck in sweat and wet confetti:
Thanks to Major General Joseph Fil, commander of the 1st Cavalry Division in Baghdad, I see that I was wrong about what the surge actually is. The day that Bush unveiled the plan, I wrote that it was a reiteration of the "clear, hold, build" strategy announced in late 2005, only this time with greater resources devoted to it, and focused on Baghdad. This wasn't some idiosyncratic interpretation: the Wall Street Journal noticed the same thing, and General Petraeus's confirmation testimony strengthened the impression mightily. In a press conference yesterday, however, General Fil announced that what's being done in Baghdad is... something else:
This new plan involves three basic parts:clear, control and retain.The first objective within each of the security districts in the Iraqi capital is to clear out extremist elements neighborhood by neighborhood in an effort to protect the population.And after an area is cleared, we're moving to what we call the control operation.The charitable interpretation of this might be termed The Hold Steady. Contrary to, oh, everything we've been told by President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and nearly two months of Weekly Standard editorials, U.S. forces supporting the surge aren't going to be doing the holding, much less the building in clear-hold-build. Instead, General Fil informs us, they're going to get a given area under "control," and then give it to Iraqi forces for the latter part of the "control" phase and then the "retain" phase. They'll then serve in a rapid-response capacity as necessary in case of any -- how to put this -- miscalculations in commanders' assessments of when that area was ready for the big Iraqi handoff. And so this begs the question: what's a sufficient indicator for judging when an area is under "control"? No violence? Some violence? Kinda-sorta violence? General Fil: Well, car bombs certainly are a major threat.And you're absolutely right; the targets for them have been primarily innocent civilians, men, women and even children.So: car bombs to be "redirected." U.S. forces not to "hold" territory, but rather "control" it. Hand off to Iraqi forces to "retain" those neighborhoods. "Building" to be ultimately under Iraqi control with some unspecified U.S. civilian help (that has a pattern of not materializing). Why, it's... it's... the last four years of failed strategy in Iraq! I suppose there's no real cause for surprise. You already knew that everything The Hold Steady does always sounds the same. --Spencer Ackerman
The "surge" was always more of a marketing trick than anything else. Even the term itself sounds like a football play. It's not hard to imagine Bush watching a Texas A&M game, yelling "SURGE, GODAMMIT" at the TV. |