The One in Four War

General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, is widely viewed as the architect behind a "surge" of 21,500 troops. But even Petraeus believes that the Bush Administration's policy is unlikely to succeed.

Oregon Senator Gordon Smith said Friday that Petraeus told him privately that "we have a one in four chance that Bush's plan will work." (Thanks to Josh Marshall for unearthing Smith's remark.)

The Administration and its loyalists are constantly urging critics of the war to give Petraeus time for his policy to bear fruit. But is it tactically smart--and morally justifiable--to send 21,500 more troops into a mission that even our top generals believe is likely to fail?

And how in the world does the Administration still not have a backup plan. "Plan B was to make Plan A work," Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen recalled after a group of governors met with the White House last week.

Or maybe there's a plan C: Topple Iran and hope nobody remembers Iraq (or Afghanistan).

Comments (38)

1. The military are the only ones who have ever had a plan to win the war in Iraq.Bush vetoed their plan to win and went for war on the cheap. No GOP politician has ever had a plan to win in Iraq because such a plan would end their careers.Apparently,they care more about their careers than they do winning.If you want to know how to win a war it's best to look at the liberal Democrat Roosevelt.You unite the country,mobilize the country and then kick their butts.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 03/05/2007 @ 1:51pm

2. Wonder if we'll be waiting for CPT to show up to explain how NOW he thinks Petraeus (who he supported just a few weeks ago)... "doesn't know what he's talking about"....

   as he did to the generals who said the Surge wouldn't work...

   who CPT SUPPORTED before they starting opposing the Bush policies.

   Posted by Mask at 03/05/2007 @ 1:52pm

3. Posted by MASK 03/05/2007 @ 1:52pm

   I doubt we'll see him. He's so busy spinning around trying to figure out who to salute, he's no doubt nauseous.

   Posted by leftofcenter at 03/05/2007 @ 1:57pm

4. 3. More Troops for Iraq

   Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, "all the troops in the world will not provide security." Meanwhile, America's military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world.

   Page 30 of the Iraq Study Group Report.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 03/05/2007 @ 1:59pm

5. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 03/05/2007 @ 1:57pm

   Actually I think the "Walter Reed" thing has him stumped...or he's waiting on Rush or Sean to tell him how it's Clinton's fault....

   so he can come back and explain how Riley, Weightman, and the Sec'y. of the Army ...and a GOP Congress in power for 12 years...and a GOP President in power for 6....are "blameless" for soldiers getting out-patient treatment like they were POWs....under the authority of Germans or Japanese in WW-2!

   Posted by Mask at 03/05/2007 @ 2:00pm

6. MASK

   Your faith in sources who "unearth" private comments from a thrid party is laughable.

   One in four...gee, that is pretty bad. Sorry no I have no real faith or trust in Ari Bermans yellow brand of journalism

   Posted by CPT at 03/05/2007 @ 3:05pm

7. But they do have a not yet revealed backup plan. Sources tell me, without giving away the details, that it's referred to as "The Stalingrad Option."

   Posted by donescobar at 03/05/2007 @ 3:05pm

8. LEFTOCENTER

   Dont worry, your daughter MUST salute me. lolol

   Posted by CPT at 03/05/2007 @ 3:06pm

9. Maybe you should take it easy on the cap'n. If you beat him up too badly, he may need to turn to his employer for medical/psychiatric help.

   (Uh-oh...)

   Posted by drhammer at 03/05/2007 @ 3:09pm

10. Posted by CPT 03/05/2007 @ 3:05pm

    So Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) is "in on" the great "liberal defeatist media push"?

    Read what he said. He's still "mostly loyal", but unfortunately let a little truth slip out.

    Or do you think he was lying?...or Petraeus was lying to him?

    Posted by Mask at 03/05/2007 @ 3:13pm

11. CPT Why does Kiefer Sutherland have to go to West Point to tell the future military leaders to not pay attention to fictional t.v.?Why does he have to explain to what is supposed to be some of our best and brightest that the show 24 is for entertainment and not to be taken seriously?A t.v. star is going to give them facts concerning torture because the cadets aren't believing what the military instructors are telling them about torture.Pathetic.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/05/2007 @ 3:18pm

12. "Sorry no I have no real faith or trust in Ari Bermans yellow brand of journalism."

    Posted by CPT 03/05/2007 @ 3:05pm

    Here's an interesting excerpt from Ari's blog:

    "Oregon Senator Gordon Smith ☼ said Friday that Petraeus told him privately that "we have a one in four chance that Bush's plan will work.""

    Here we have an attributed quote from a Republican senator.

    I think it's too late for killing messengers.

    Posted by drhammer at 03/05/2007 @ 3:19pm

13. Posted by MASK 03/05/2007 @ 2:00pm | ignore this person

    You guys are robots, ironic since you guys constantly refer to me as one, you take what the media spit out and take it as gospel.

    Not very enlightened, really rather narrow-minded way of looking at things.

    Yes you are the experts of all that is wrong with military health care.

    Ok here is the truth, not that it would make much difference to fake charloten pricks like you MASK but here it is anyway.

    For routine medical care the Army health system is pretty good.

    And routine surgeries as well.

    Their "misdiagnosis" rates are no higher than that of the civilian world.

    Walter Reed, well i already told you that had already request funding to fix its problems, all the resignations is for your benefit. It allows you to believe that things are going to be different, because the plan was put in place a long time ago, so when it happens, you foolishly think:

    "Well you see, the new SECDEF is shaking things up", when in reality it was already done. thank you for playing i am not really smarter than a fifth grader.

    Posted by CPT at 03/05/2007 @ 3:23pm

14. CPT The military had this Walter Reed problem 34 years ago.Try again.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/05/2007 @ 3:25pm

15. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/05/2007 @ 3:18pm | ignore this person

    lolol Ask Keifer.....best and brightest???? lolol Where you EVER in the Army?????????

    Posted by CPT at 03/05/2007 @ 3:25pm

16. CPT Do you have an answer to my Kiefer Sutherland question?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/05/2007 @ 3:26pm

17. Posted by DRHAMMER 03/05/2007 @ 3:19pm | ignore this person

    You see there you guys go with the lying, the liberal specialty, obfuscate the issue. That is the your guys bible right.

    I dont want ot kill the messanger. I just do NOT BELIEVE the messagener

    Posted by CPT at 03/05/2007 @ 3:27pm

18. Walter Reed, well i already told you that had already request funding to fix its problems, all the resignations is for your benefit. It allows you to believe that things are going to be different, because the plan was put in place a long time ago, so when it happens, you foolishly think:

    "Well you see, the new SECDEF is shaking things up", when in reality it was already done. thank you for playing i am not really smarter than a fifth grader.

    Posted by CPT 03/05/2007

    So how do you explain the "squalid" conditions that men and women who have given arms, legs, and other body parts for their country were put in? How is that possible?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/05/2007 @ 3:29pm

19. Walter Reed, well i already told you that had already request funding to fix its problems, all the resignations is for your benefit. It allows you to believe that things are going to be different, because the plan was put in place a long time ago, so when it happens, you foolishly think:

    Posted by CPT 03/05/2007 @ 3:23pm

    Yeah and we already went through the "logic" of that. That they had "requested the funding" and "had a plan in place for a long time"....but General Weightman was "surprised" by the discovery of the decrepit conditions of the out-patient facilities LAST MONTH?

    You aren't a robot, CPT. You're sick and twisted. You put your own political ideology and loyalty to George W. Bush, President for SIX YEARS, and the Republicans who ran Congress for TWELVE YEARS....ahead of your loyalty to your fellow soldiers who come back from a war YOU aren't fighting in....and as wounded get treated worse than a bunch of felines in a house by some "crazy old cat lady" who has 50, 100 of them.

    You're no soldier...you're a partisan flunky. And if you had ONE OUNCE of honesty in your body...and this scandal had occurred under Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress....

    you'd be screaming (rightfully) bloody murder about it and blaming those in charge!

    Posted by Mask at 03/05/2007 @ 3:30pm

20. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/05/2007 @ 3:26pm | ignore this person

    Deep down i like you bud. Come on, you know that is a silly question. You would have to ask Kiefer why he was doing that. I cannot answer for his motivations

    Posted by CPT at 03/05/2007 @ 3:31pm

21. best and brightest????

    Yeah, but you kiss that Academy ass, don't you, O3? You have to. Men and women half your age passing you up; and you, never going any higher, even during war time. That's gotta eat at you.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/05/2007 @ 3:31pm

22. Posted by MASK 03/05/2007 @ 3:30pm | ignore this person

    You guys seem to be under the very FALSE impression that that kind of personal attack is going to get to me.

    Well sorry, the first month i got here, immunzied me to that.

    I do not need to justify my resume to people i do not know, especially to wacko looney leftists/libertarian asswipes.

    Partisan????? Are you kidding, i guess you missed my previous post on another thread that dealt with this matter.

    MASK you revert back to your dishonest and misattributing ways when you get pissed off.

    You are not anyone whose opinion i am interested in courting. DELIBRATE liars and bearers of false witness rank fairly low in my book.

    Gee you say you care so much??? Where is Walter Reed???? What street is it on?

    What is on the third floor? Who have you visited there? Besides posing as a Code Pink memeber when was the last time you were there?

    Cant answer....then sit back down on your fourth point of contact and apply some vagisil.

    Posted by CPT at 03/05/2007 @ 3:41pm

23. CPT Kiefer is doing it because the Commandant of the Corps of Cadets asked him to explain to the Corp that they shouldn't believe everything they see on fictional T.V. That just because torture works on the show 24 doesn't mean it works in real life.Apparently,many cadets are telling their don't torture people because it doesn't work instructors that it works on the show 24 and Kiefer has been asked to tell them that the stuff on the show is made up in order to keep the action going.It is kind of sad that you have to tell an adult not to believe what they see on T.V.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/05/2007 @ 3:45pm

24. "Yeah and we already went through the "logic" of that. That they had "requested the funding" and "had a plan in place for a long time"....but General Weightman was "surprised" by the discovery of the decrepit conditions of the out-patient facilities LAST MONTH?" Posted by MASK

    You failed to answer to that. Unwrap yourself from the flag and provide an explanation, O3.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/05/2007 @ 3:47pm

25. "....then sit back down on your fourth point of contact and apply some vagisil."

    Posted by CPT

    Is that what they do in the army?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/05/2007 @ 4:00pm

26. CPT You did post something that I very much agree with.I'm medically retired from the Air Force and can get treatment from the Veterans Administration,military,or civilian sources.I get free government insurance to use if I'm not within 40 miles of a V.A. or military base.I have had to use all three more than enough and in more than enough places to know how good they generally are.The military is pretty much equal to most civilian sources and does treat disabled veterans with far more respect than the Veterans Administration does.Even in my hippie days I was treated with respect in a military hospital by even those who very much disagreed with my views,looks, and lifestyle.The military has this Walter Reed problem in every war and hopefully,they'll come up with a permanent solution.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/05/2007 @ 4:04pm

27. Put a few senior officers (if there are any missing limbs) in with the privates and that will take care of the problem real fast.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/05/2007 @ 4:08pm

28. You guys seem to be under the very FALSE impression that that kind of personal attack is going to get to me.

    Posted by CPT 03/05/2007 @ 3:41pm

    I don't give a rat's ass (found in a corner of the out-patient facility at WRAMC) about anything "getting to you".

    You're a pathetic excuse for a soldier (well before human being). Apparently your motto is "Never leave a buddy behind...unless it would hurt the image of GW Bush or the Republican Party!"

    These are YOUR comrades-in-arms. And to cavalierly shunt aside what was discovered at Walter Reed and HAS NOT BEEN DENIED as the situation there with "oh, they knew about it and had plans for years" but "only got the funding LAST year" (explain WHY it was only last year?).....and to say the resignations were for "our benefit" and not WHOLELY DESERVED (though they should have taken out Riley as well)...

    shows where your true loyalties lie...and it's not to your brothers and sisters in uniform.

    And what REALLY chaffs me is that even a CONSERVATIVE should be outraged about this (not just us "wacko looney leftists/libertarian asswipes")....given they are supposed to be the ones that DON'T "loathe the military"....

    especially when they're IN IT!

    Posted by Mask at 03/05/2007 @ 4:18pm

29. Sorry no I have no real faith or trust in Ari Bermans yellow brand of journalism

    Posted by CPT 03/05/2007 @ 3:05pm

    Have you tried "The Google?"

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/05/2007 @ 4:19pm

30. "These are YOUR comrades-in-arms." Posted by MASK

    They're enlisted men, Mask, and now they're enlisted men that are of no use to the military. He doesn't care about them.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/05/2007 @ 4:22pm

31. If Lookheed or Haliburton can't make big bucks from the injured....how the hell do you think any Republican is going to care?

    Now if we'd just agree to pay Haliburton $100 for every Hallmark card they sent to an injured soldier we'd see enough crocodile tears to flood New Orleans (again).

    Posted by freedomplease at 03/05/2007 @ 4:36pm

32. Damn, when the going gets rough the O3 goes, huh?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/05/2007 @ 4:38pm

33. and now they're enlisted men that are of no use to the military. He doesn't care about them.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/05/2007 @ 4:22pm

    Don't conflate CPT with "the military", MTSP. Neither he nor Riley, Weightman (though he MIGHT have been attempting reforms), or Bush or the Republicans represent "the military".

    Any American soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine who upheld the honor and traditions of the US Armed Forces....wouldn't be a STOOGE for EITHER side's party politics and put that ahead of his compatriots.

    Again, can you imagine what a CPT character would have said if the situation at Walter Reed had been discovered under a Democrat Presidency and a Democratic-controlled Congress (that had been in power long enough to know and FIX the problem)?

    No way it'd be "oh, they knew about it years ago and had plans to fix it"...and then the contradictory "the funding was approved last year" (again...why did the funding not come "years ago"???).

    He'd be talking about a President who said he "loathed the military" and "Democrats who don't care about combat vets who were WOUNDED".....but given it's Bush and a Republican Congress....

    it's "No big deal. You libs (liberals AND libertarians) are just squawking about something that's under control! Here! We gave you a few resignations to make YOU happy! Now shut up and support the troops!"

    Posted by Mask at 03/05/2007 @ 4:43pm

34. If Lookheed or Haliburton can't make big bucks from the injured....how the hell do you think any Republican is going to care?

    Now if we'd just agree to pay Haliburton $100 for every Hallmark card they sent to an injured soldier we'd see enough crocodile tears to flood New Orleans (again).

    Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE

    You've got that right. The last thing the military wants to spend money on is its enlisted personnel.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/05/2007 @ 5:23pm

35. RIO BRAVO The fact that you believe that only the left is opposed to this shows a serious lack of knowledge.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/06/2007 @ 09:33am

36. Nobody you make a good point, but you miss the fact that we have already done that. We have kicked the enemies butt across that desert. We have entered the "Marshall Plan" phase of this war. The only problem is these people either do not understand we wish to help them, or know that we are there for more malicious reasons. In addition, we also are not applying the right resources. Soldiers typically do not make good re builders of civilizations or diplomats.

    Posted by Soccer4 at 03/06/2007 @ 3:08pm

37. The leftwingers are graping at straws as most early reports show that the strategy is bearing fruit.

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/05/2007 @ 11:04pm

    Which reports are those, RIO? From where?

    Posted by Mask at 03/06/2007 @ 4:45pm

38. 3. More Troops for Iraq

    Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, "all the troops in the world will not provide security." Meanwhile, America's military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world.

    Page 30 of the Iraq Study Group Report.

    Situation desperate! The leftwingers are graping at straws as most early reports show that the strategy is bearing fruit. The inventiveness of the lies on the left are truely a sight to behold. Posted by RIO BRAVO

    Can you read Rio Bozo? I think Baker is much more qualified to make recommendations than these fools surronding Jr.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/06/2007 @ 5:00pm