HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

I wasn't planning on posting at all this weekend - its finals week, and I'm in the midst of grading hell - but this is so bafflingly stupid I just had to pass it along.

As I'm sure you're aware, the administration is planning one last surge in Iraq, an influx of an additional 30-50,000 troops to secure Baghdad, restore order, and turn one last corner on our way to success. Aside from the fact that it is about 2 years too late, and aside from the fact that we have no plans to call on Iraq's neighbors to provide an assist, and aside from the fact that the Army's Chief of Staff claims the Army is nearly "broken"...

"As it currently stands," Gen. Peter Schoomaker said Thursday, "the Army is incapable of generating and sustaining the required forces to wage the global war on terror."

Aside from all that, it looks like the man who is going to be placed in charge of the "surge" is precisely the wrong man for the job. As Matt points out, Gen. Raymond Odierno was in charge of the 4th ID back in 2003. For those of you who have read Thomas Rick's Fiasco, the name 4th ID should be ringing in your ears. For those who have not, this excerpt from the book will tell you absolutely everything you need to know. Assuming, of course, you want to spend the next 5 minutes depressing yourself.

The 4th ID's post-invasion tactics were a disaster. But don't take my word for it. Or Ricks. Here is Rick's reporting on what the Marine Corps itself had to say about them:

The unit was initially given the role of invading Iraq from the north in spring 2003, but its assignment was changed after the Turkish government declined to permit the movement of U.S. troops through its territory. The 4th Infantry's equipment was shipped to Kuwait, and it entered Iraq from there after the invasion was over.

In mid-April, the division was assigned to relieve the Marines who had briefly occupied Hussein's home town of Tikrit. In language unusual for an officially produced document, the history of the operation produced by the Marines 1st Division is disapproving, even contemptuous, of what it calls the 4th Infantry Division's "very aggressive" posture as the unit came into Iraq.

The history dryly noted that the Marines, "despite some misgivings," turned over the area to the 4th Infantry Division and departed April 21. "Stores that had re-opened quickly closed back up as the people once again evacuated the streets, adjusting to the new security tactics," the final draft of the history reported. "A budding cooperative environment between the citizens and American forces was quickly snuffed out. The new adversarial relationship would become a major source of trouble in the coming months."

Read on and you'll get a very small taste of a long series of brutalities committed by the 4th ID. Remember, this was in the immediate aftermath for the invasion, before the insurgency had begun in earnest, while we were supposed to be winning hearts and minds.

Now Gen. Odierno is the #2 man in Iraq. It will be under his command that McCain, Bush, and Lieberman will give their failed war one last shot. Americans want withdrawal, but these bozos are going to give them escalation. Wonderful.

UPDATE: While we're talking about military policy, here's Pat Lang's take on Gen Schoomaker's comments on the current state of the

The Regular Army (active force) is going to break, split wide open from stress and grief and family loneliness. There are not enough units to rotate in and out of the war in any way that human flesh can bear indefinitely. We have to have more brigades of regular soldiers to carry the burden. Rumsfeld's snotty remark about going to war withe army you have rather than the one you would prefer is now revealed as more than boorish. It is the description of approaching disaster, a disaster which will take decades to repair in the fabric of the Army to say nothing of the wreckage of our place in the world.

What about the reserve components, the National Guard and Army Reserve? Schoomaker reminded the Congress that present Defense policy does not allow a reservist to serve on active duty for more than two years in a four year period. This means that units must be sent back overseas without many of their key personnel, men and women who are comrades, and without whom the unit is not the same place to live and fight. Instead individuals are brought in from all over the country to fill the places of friends.

Combat units are like tribal groups. The bonds that make good units into more than the sum of their parts are severely damaged by the introduction of strangers on the eve of battle. In time, such newcomers hopefully become part of the "family" but a high price may be paid while this is happening.

The restrictions on Reserve duty are just one of two major problems facing the US Army. The other has to do with force rotations of the regular Army itself. At this point, most of the regular Army units that can be deployed to Iraq already have been multiple times. To "surge" another 30-50k, we're going to have to both extend the tour of the soldiers already there, as well as accelerate the return of many who just got home.

So here's my question... if you are a civilian who thinks this surge will work and you're under the age of 35, why haven't you volunteered yet to serve?