50,000 Is a "Surge"; 20,000 Is a "Wave"

Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?

The word is that George W. Bush is about to announce an escalation of our forces in Iraq by 20,000 soldiers. But the original Keane-Kagan-Kristol "surge" plan proposed last fall said that we needed not 20,000 but 50,000 additional combat troops were needed to break the vicious circle of insurgency in Iraq. 50,000 is a "surge." 20,000 is more like a "wave":

Kagan and Kristol: Time for a Heavier Footprint: [A]s long as the Sunni Arab insurgency continues... the Shiite community [will not] abandon the [militia and death squad] forces it sees as essential for its self-defense. And as long as the Shiite militias.. victimize Sunni Arabs... Sunni Arab insurgent leaders [will stay away from]... the negotiating table.... The question of troop levels in Iraq is fundamental.... [S]erious people... concede we need more troops.... [S]urging 50,000... will strain a strained military further. But... we can do it--if we think success in Iraq is a national priority...

Keane, Kagan, and Kristol appear to have scrubbed the American Enterprise Institute website of their original 50,000 number.

Nevertheless, I am astonished that I cannot find a single mainstream news reporter who finds the cutback of the proposed "surge" from 50,000 to 20,000 worth mentioning, even in passing, except for Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times:

Kagan and Keane argued on December 27 that: "It is difficult to imagine a responsible plan for getting the violence in and around Baghdad under control that could succeed with fewer than 30,000 combat troops beyond the forces already in Iraq." But British diplomats reckon that Bush is going to announce a surge of just 20,000 extra troops. And - as I pointed out in my column last week - in November Fred Kagan was arguing that at least 50,000 extra troops would be needed to improve the security situation in Baghdad alone...

For example, searching the Washington Post for "surge AND Iraq AND 50,000" produces nothing relevant since a December 19, 2006 article by Robin Wright and Peter Baker, and a December 19, 2006 op-ed column from Eugene Robinson.

Since then, Robin Wright and Peter Baker have forgotten--or remembered but tried hard to make their readers forget--the size the "surge" was originally supposed to be. And others like Michael Abramowitz, Sally Quinn, Richard Cohen, Howard Kurtz, Jonathan Weisman, Bill Brubaker, Joel Achenbach, Joshua Partlow, Shailagh Murray, Al Kamen, Ann Scott Tyson, George F. Will, Jim Hoagland, Rick Atkinson, Dana Priest, David Ignatius, Robert D. Novak, and a host of wire service reporters have all managed to write about the forthcoming surge of troops into Iraq without finding space to mention that the original "surge" of 50,000 has been cut back to a much smaller "wave" of 20,000. Now I wouldn't have expected everyone writing over the past nine days to notice the cutback from surge to wave. But somebody should have. That's 0-for-19 of those drawing paychecks from the Washington Post.

The New York Times does no better: searching for "surge and Iraq" produces 21 hits since January 1 (some spurious), none of which mention the original 50,000 size of the surge. The last mention of the 50,000 number appears to be by David Sanger and Michael Gordon on December 16.

My recommendation? If you aren't now taking the Financial Times (and surfing to its excellent website) and are taking the Washington Post or the New York Times, stop doing so: redirect your newspaper dollars to an organization that is actually doing its job--like the FT--and away from those that are not.

And continue to get your news and analysis from reputable weblogs that regard informing and educating their readers as job #1.

Comments

[StlInquirer]

Or even worse. Very few actually juxtapose some estimates of the plausible number of troops avaiable (~9000 - really just a ripple, not even a wave) with different estimates minimum number required (for one estimate of no less than 50000 COMBAT troops for Baghdad alone - see Josh Marshall today). Nor do many news accounts do much in the way of comparing these to troop ratios in other conflicts. Or to comparing these numbers to the number of people working for the US in Iraq (troops and contractors) already in Iraq. Or to do much to discuss how much this might cost? Or what would be used as a metric to judge the success of the "surge"? Or, or, or ....

It's not because people think this will be the way to win in Iraq. No reasonable person can honestly think this. It's because few people have the ovaries to go on record against the surge because they're cowards - afraid of getting blamed for losing the war.

I think it's time to remind everyone of Daniel Davies' challenge (the Davies Cup?) before anyone agrees to even consider a "surge" of troops.

[Idaho_Spud]

Another pundit number gone down the memory hole. This runs in the same vein as their own horrific budget estimates, then claiming they are "reducing the federal deficit".

It would be floor-rolling comedy if the end results weren't so tragic.

[STS]

I just got an emotional email chain letter with a photo of an Air Force sergeant cradling a small child whose entire family had been killed by insurgents. The comment was "why isn't this all over the news?"

I'm concerned that the right is successfully focusing attention of their crowd on the "good things" being done by individual service men and women (indeed it was a powerful image and I heartily applaud that sergeant for his compassionate response to a child in need) with zero context about the reckless policy that brought this chaos into being.

The absurd lack of context about the politically computed "surge" numbers is being compounded by a lack of context about the moral valence of our presence. Are we doing more harm than good there? The MSM has no comment.

[Anonymous]

The Economist is with you, their article is titled "Less a surge than a squirt".

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8511692

[bakho]

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/iraq/

Bush considering smaller-than-expected increase in troops for Iraq
By WARREN P. STROBEL and NANCY A. YOUSSEF
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - President Bush plans to order extra U.S. troops to Iraq as part of a new push to secure Baghdad, but in smaller numbers than previously reported, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
...
"Instead of a surge, it is a bump," said a State Department official. .....

Bush had been considering proposals to send a much larger contingent into Baghdad -- as many as 30,000-40,000 soldiers and Marines.

Some experts doubt that the smaller deployment would be sufficient to halt Iraq's escalating civil war between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

Details of Bush's Iraq strategy are still being finalized and could change. But the smaller troop increase appears to reflect the real-world constraints the president faces as he tries to persuade the American public that victory is still possible in Iraq.

To marshal even 15,000 to 20,000 additional troops, Bush would have to accelerate the return of some units to the battlefield, cutting their time to train between deployments.

Advocates of a "surge" in U.S. troop levels have argued that to be effective in halting the violence, the United States would have to send a significant number of troops for an extended period of time.

Frederick W. Kagan, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative policy research center, recently briefed the White House on his plan to send 32,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Baghdad and volatile Anbar province. The troops would remain in Iraq for 18 months.

On Wednesday, Kagan cautioned against over-interpreting the number of troops being sent. More important, he said, is the number of individual combat brigades and battalions sent to Iraq and how they're deployed.

The State Department official said that, even at this late juncture, administration officials are debating what the extra troops would do.

Officials in Baghdad have said that extra troops could be used to secure the capital or add soldiers to military transition teams, who train alongside their Iraqi counterparts.

But in Washington, the thinking increasingly is that the troops would be used to try to secure Baghdad and protect the Iraqi population from relentless violence, State Department officials said.

A senior defense official said that a military study of strategy in Iraq, part of Bush's overall policy review, concluded that the current policy of rapidly training Iraqi security forces and turning responsibility over to them was the wrong course.

That policy was essentially "a rush to failure," the defense official said.

The additional troop deployments are only one facet of the plan. The president also is expected to announce another initiative to reconcile Iraqi Sunni and Shia Muslims and to request additional funds to provide jobs to Iraqis who otherwise might join ethnic militias.

To date, billions of dollars in U.S. funds have gone to rebuild Iraq, but the bulk of that money has been awarded to American firms, which hire non-Iraqi contractors.

[bakho]

Strobel has been more conistently correct in Iraq reporting because he doesn't repeat Karl Rove talking points.

[Hedley Lamarr]

That 50K figure will pop out of the memory hole just as soon as the 20K fail to do the job. Then Pudge Kagan will help us all remember his original figure.

[PaulGBrown]

Oh but it is worse than you think.

General Petraeus had a significant hand in updating the US Military's manual on Counterinsurgency[1]. This is the manual Klein approvingly links to (see Brad's note below) in a Swampland post[2] where he accuses Krugman of being someone who dabbles in matters Krugman doesn't really understand. [*]

If you actually read that document you will find (pp. 1-13, para 1-67) the recommendation that the minimum ratio of force to population appropriate for counterinsurgency is about 20 troops per 1000 population. As Iraq has 24 million people, this would indicate that an occupying force would need about 500,000 troops to pacify it.

I am going to guess that it's this kind of orthodox, doctrinal thinking that led General Shinseki to his estimate of 'several hundred thousand'.

The US has about 130,000 tropps currently in Iraq. Another 20,000 will bring us up to 150,000. An extra 50,000 brings us up to 180,000. In other words, even Keane-Kagan-Kristol's original 'surge' plan increases the ratio of force to population to a little more than 1/3 the numbers the US military's own doctrine asserts is needed.

And my arithmetic is simplistic, of course. Not all of Iraq needs pacification. But 150,000 is barely enough to do the job for Baghdad's 7 million people!

None of our princes of the fourth estate has, apparently, read even the basics on the military issues in question here.

[1] http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf

[2] http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/01/left_behind.html

[*] Klein, meanwhile, apparently doesn't know who Daniel Kahneman is or why Krugman's 'delusional' option is a vastly lesser evil than his 'cynical'. Irony abounds.

[PaulGBrown]

Arr crud ....

I see Josh Marshall said it.

But I said it yesterday!

[ilsm]

Responsible people would have sent 30,000 troops and support to New Orleans after Katrina.

There is no responsible person in the White House, nor at AEI.

What will 50,000 troops do for Baghdad? In the classic insurgency formula, one responsible people use you need 20 soldiers per 1000 population.

So, 50,000 troops covers 1 million population.

I would not, however, be reasonable, responsible according to AEI is not reasonable, if I did not tell you there is no successful counter insurgency where 20 troops to 1000 population meant anything.

Come to think about it we failed in Vietnam because our 500,000 covered only 10 million population so maybe the figure is wrong maybe more like 50 per 1000.

That would be 20 to one very bad odds for offensive operations.

The point I make is who let AEI and Kagan determine the number or the definition of responsible?

The question is what about American soldiers in Iraq is building a rule of law by Iraqis?

If the populations wanted to rid themselves of the insurgents or militias they would.

If they need partitioning we are not doing that.

So, all we are doing is experimenting to see if unproven responsible people can make something work with no idea of process nor effects.

Who defines responsible?

[ken melvin]

What claim Kagan and Kristol this thing called expertise?

[ilsm]

Kagan is son of a man who wrote a book about soldiering, which was made into a pbs special.

I read the book years ago, fair history, lots of nice pictures.

The son worked a book or two with dad and singly and had a job teaching military history at the US Military Academy.

I am not sure a studier of history can do better than pose theory and wait for the controversy to arise over the past.

Why expect them to work the future?

[Anderson]

"20,000 is more like a 'wave.'"

Not even. It's a "splash."

As in, "last splash."

[Anderson]

"Why expect them to work the future?"

Because they insist on it?

[save_the_rustbelt]

Even in the days of private contracting support, not all 20,000 troops can be front line combat troops, you have a battalion HQ company, cooks, truck drivers and etc. as a part of the force. Add some battalions (air mobile, signal, logisitics) and you still aren't getting a huge force.

Even assuming the military infrastructure (logistics, medical) that currently is on the ground can service the new troops, no way can you get 20,000 fighting troops out of a 20,000 deployment.

Schwarzkopf is looking smarter all the time. He wanted 500,000 troops to clear and hold a corner of Iraq and Kuwait.

And the real problem is this - we will not allow our troops to kill the enemy, the enemy is mixed into the population and we want a clean and tidy war.

Time to come home.

[John Emerson]

A 9,000 man surge is barely a blip, especially when AP has just reported that the troops will be phased in gradually. It can't have any effect on the ground.

A 9k gradual surge isn't even good PR. These guys are losing it in a frightening way -- PR is the only thing they've ever been good at.

[StlInquirer]

I think we need a new competition since no one has been able to rise to Daniel Davies' Challenge. How about an analogy contest. I've started one over at my house but here's some appetizers:

The Bush administration's performance is to competence as:

a) Black holes are to light (no competence can escape the White House's event horizon)
b) i is to whole numbers (not in overlapping sets)
c) Heat Miser is to Snow Miser (on the same dimension
d) Dennis Miller is to humor
e) Bush is to Washington (presidentiality)
f) Astral to Material (not in the same plane of reality)

[dale]

"And the real problem is this - we will not allow our troops to kill the enemy, the enemy is mixed into the population and we want a clean and tidy war."

That's not a problem Rusty. To the extent that it's true, it's a blessing. But I fear that it's not true to a great enough extent.

Look- this whole invasion and occupation is immoral, unnecessary, unwise, and will lead to nothing but ill for all involved. Let's not forget that we are the ones at fault here- and let's not get into another version of our troops hands are tied behind their backs.

[knut wicksell]

Wave? Sir, you are to generous. Ripple, more like.

[Fred]

Can we assume from this post that DeLong will support a true surge of 50,000?

[I really don't think that would be enough--and if it were to be enough, they would all need to be Arabic speakers. I think that if we are serious about Iraq, we need to pay Egypt's price to deploy 300,000 Arabic-speaking military police into Iraq.]

[howard]

John, excellent point: when even the core competency is falling apart....

Fred, ridiculous point: you're a parody, right?

[DEEPGHETTO]

This whole "clear,hold and build,tm" strategy from Bushco is too little,too late.If these wannabe colonialist were serious about holding their little treasure the CPA would have been administered by competent officers from the State Dept...Lets just concentrate on the "build" part of this latest slogan substituting for strategy.We don't hear or read much about any rebuilding of Iraq's agriculture now do we.Is it because the USA has bombed and the insurgents have sabotaged any effort to rebuild the electrical grids and refineries,kinda need those for fertilizer production,poisioned the fertile tracts with bomb residue and the sewage and irrigation pumps and plants bombed or in disrepair.Last but not least,Prof Brad,Pgl,Anne and other econs,riddle me this how is any functioning economy supposed to operate strictly on a foreign currency and precious metal basis in everyday legal business transactions?The USA has dismantled the previous banking system and really not replaced it with anything NO WONDER BILLIONS ARE LOST...Yeah big bad Uncle Sam is really going to convince the average Iraqi we are gonna rebuild this time.Honestly Omar and Moe we really are.

[Adam]

On journalistic irresponsibility, or the lack thereof, see Joe Nocera's reply to Malcolm Gladwell.

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070106/ZNYT01/701060460/1001/BUSINESS

[Rick Kane]

Hello: Since this is a blog about why, oh why we don't have a better press corps, I will throw bouquet to Fred Kaplan's column "War Stories" on slate.com where he breaks down the military insignificance of this "wave," for the extra GIs and Iraqis who will die, not only researching Keane's and Kagan's original proposal, but pointing it out that under Petraeus's new doctrinal manual even that number would be insufficient for Baghdad alone, that figure being 120,000. Impeach George Bush.

[wjd123]

The number game isn't important. The surge should answer more important questions once and for all, and lead to a real change in policy. We should do every thing that is politically possible not to leave Iraq in chaos. We don't want to destabilize other countries as we did with Cambodia during the Vietnam War.

According to early reports of what is contained in Bush's speech, six Iraqi troops are supposed to show up in Baghdad for every American troop. That means that the surge in Baghdad will be 120,000 Iraqi troops and 20,000 American troops. However not all those troops will be fighting in the field because it take 5 to 10 auxiliary troops to support one infantry man. That means to put 20,000 more American infantry troops in the field at least 50,000 troops would have to direct their attention toward the Iraqi theater. See how easy it is use statistics to get whatever results you want.

Playing the numbers game isn't as important a concern as the fact that we are going to increase our footprint in Iraq. That isn't as important a concern as the answer to the question, will the Iraqis show up and fight? That isn't as important a concern as the answer to the question, will they only fight against Sunnis? And all these questions aren't as important a concern as the political one: "Will the surge undermine the legitimacy of the Iraqi government?

The surge strategy has the cart before the horse. First we send in more American troops and then we ask for accountability on the part of the Iraqi government. But that is not the worst of it. The surge strategy, according to General Abizaid's recent testimony before congress, undermines the legitimacy of the Iraqi government.

Polls tell us that most Iraqis don't want us there. The Iraqi government by allowing more American troops into the country makes its government look more and more like a puppet of the United States.

Our efforts in Iraq for the last two years to build legitimacy in government by means of a constitution and elections will be undermined along with our efforts to hand security for their country off to the Iraqis. The surge strategy will further Americanize the war. A policy American voters are against.

After our efforts for the last two years the surge strategy is an admission of failure. That might be seen as sobering if the new strategy didn't appear to be more of the same and just as delusional.

Of all the many changing aims Bush has come up with over the years--to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. to topple the dictator Saddam, to bring democracy to Iraq, to bring peace to the Middle East, to leave a stable Iraq when we depart--the surge strategy doesn't appear to advance any of them because what it gains militarily it loses politically by undermining the legitimacy of the Iraqi government while flouting the express desires of the American people to lessen our footprint.

Considering all the likely political and military pitfalls the surge strategy appears to be an odds on favorite to be a losing strategy. However, considering its outcome can lead to a more sober assessment of the situation. Let it be the last nail in the coffin of our present policy of keeping Iraq whole under one government. If the Iraqis can't muster a central legitimate authority under which the Iraqi people can live then partition the country.

The Kurds want it, the Sunni want it as long as they share in oil revenues, and the Shites, who seem incapable of running the country, should have it imposed on them.

Because of what Iraq has degenerated into this appears the best solution for Iraqi and American interests. If it stops the sectarian violence and allows three legitimate governments to emerge with the power to enforce order their citizens will be able to progress in rebuilding their lives. America will have a buffer against the spread of Iranian influence in the Sunni state. The Kurds can be promised the carrot of American aid if they stay within their borders and don't agitate for a greater Kurdistan. Otherwise, they will face the stick of Turkey's displeasure without American aid.

This solution has pitfalls but it deserves consideration. We can't force the Iraqis to live together under one government if they don't want to without resorting to dictatorship. We also don't want a bloody civil war in Iraq with its unforeseen consequences. We do want our interests in the area protected. Without security in Iraq, our interests can't be protected.

[sm]

save the rustbelt,

tidy war?

Idiotic and immoral characterization.

[Anderson]

"we need to pay Egypt's price to deploy 300,000 Arabic-speaking military police into Iraq."

I doubt Egypt has them to spare; they are too busy keeping Egypt's leaders off the lampposts.

Besides which, there are the problems suggested by this bit from Suskind's last book, where the FBI thinks maybe it has Zawahiri's head in a box, a la "Seven":

"The CIA was brought in, and moved into action. Unmatched DNA can determine sex and age, but for specific identity they needed a DNA match from a family member. Zawahiri's brother, Mohammed, was in custody in Cairo. A CIA operations manager called a chief at Egyptian intelligence.

"He explained the situation.

"The Egyptian listened. 'No problem,' he said. 'We'll get his brother, cut off his arm, and send it over.'

"'No ... Christ!' the agency man stammered. 'No, just a vial of blood. A vial of blood's all we need.'

"The Egyptian sighed. 'Fine. Whatever you want. You want blood? We'll send blood.'"

[Ralph]

I heartily agree with your recommendation that readers of this blog stop subscribing to the Washington Pose and (especially) the NYT and start reading the FT instead. Doing this has increased my comprehension of the news by manyfold. The FT does represent a conservative view with a strong emphasis on economics and finance and it is certainly not perfect but the clarity and insight of the paper is worth a lot for one's sanity compared to the muddled confused discussion that is typical of American dailies at this time of turmoil and transition.

[anne]

No; there was no recommendation that we stop subscribing to the New York Times or "especially" the New York Times, which I would not listen to in any event. No recommendation that I remember, other than the Financial Times since the Financial Times does financial sorts of topics well.

There is however no comparison with the breadth and depth of the New York Times. Not anywhere close, and I do and will happily subscribe to the New York Times and interestingly gain immensely.

[dilbert dogbert]

Surge, Wave, Splash, Last Splash, Drop In The Bucket and my last - One Hand Clapping.
Enjoy

[tom f]

Tonights number one story was just another scripted media event played for Democratic reactions and, realistically, another two year of political ping-pong to the passing-by of coffins paraded by amputees.

When is George Bush's governing incompetence gonna be the number one story.

When is the our best knowledge on the will of the Iraqi population our number one story?

This deployment isn't Big News.

and the cost. When will the cost be the number one story?

There's so many more number one stories than GWB playing "Presidential" before his solipsistically reflective pond of 15 million ears.

[wjd123]

This is the paragraph from Bush's speech last night that scares me the most.

"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Instead of working toward bringing stability back to the Middle East it sounds to me as if Bush is about to destabilize it further.

[Auto]

Sorry, but the FT is at best my fourth read. I subscribe, but if I'm pressed for time, it's the paper that gets tossed unread.

For meat-and-potatoes coverage, I still require the trinity of NYT/WP/WSJ, no matter the manifest shortcomings of their reporting. The FT is too hors d'oeuvres-y for me -- tasty without being filling.

[ilsm]

Bush thinks Teheran is Hanoi and Syria is Cambodia.

The delusions!

The Shi'a in Baghdad are sustained from Basra.

[NYT]

"Gen. John P. Abizaid, who heads the Central Command, was opposed to any increase in American troop levels until mid-November, when he became convinced that the economic commitments by both Iraq and the United States made it worth adding troops."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12ticktock.html

General John Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Nov. 15: ``I've met with every divisional commander. General (George) Casey, the corps commander, (Lieutenant) General (Martin) Dempsey -- we all talked together. And I said, `In your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?' And they all said, `No.'''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=amLrSZrcOz3w

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/opinion/l12iraq.html

Stepping Up the War: Will the Bush Plan Work?

To the Editor:

"Bush Adding 20,000 U.S. Troops; Sets Goal of Securing Baghdad":

The president, in his speech to the nation on Wednesday, said, "For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq."

If the safety of the American people had been considered in advance by a competent president, we would have never mounted the unnecessary invasion of Iraq.

This president has thrust this nation into a predictably disastrous entanglement from which there is no satisfactory escape, never mind the unattainable "victory" to which Mr. Bush repeatedly refers.

Placing 20,000 more American troops into the caldron that Iraq has become will serve only to increase the number of dead and maimed Americans and Iraqis, leaving the sectarian civil war to rage on with little or no restraint.

The best of the wretched alternatives this president has left us is that of immediate withdrawal of the troops he has placed in grave danger with his failed war of choice. Congress must demand that this be done as expeditiously as possible.

James K. Knowles
Sierra Madre, Calif., Jan. 11, 2007

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/opinion/l12iraq.html

Stepping Up the War: Will the Bush Plan Work?

To the Editor:

I am so disgusted, appalled and frustrated, I don't even know where to begin. Are we totally helpless against this man who seems more like an arrogant, power-hungry dictator than a president?

President Bush's statement "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility lies with me" is meaningless because there are no consequences for him. Our troops, the Iraqis and the American people are paying the price of his mistakes.

This president has so clearly demonstrated his ignorance in foreign policy matters that I have no faith in his ability to judge the consequences of failure in Iraq or to make decisions about how to end this war.

America is well aware that Mr. Bush's strategy for war in Iraq was fundamentally flawed from Day 1. This new plan is no exception.

The newly elected Congress and Senate must find a way to stop him.

Misty Haskett
Houston, Jan. 11, 2007