Reframing of the notion of a "surge" of troops in Iraq

I keep saying the same thing, but I think it's important to voice this whenever the adoption of the word "surge" in Progressive (bah ptui) politicians to remember that more than one side can play the game of "hijacking the opposition's frame": by tying the word "surge" to "time-table for withdrawal", it is possible to appear to agree while actually taking a literal meaning of the other side's language to encompass conditions that the other side did not mean, did not want, and likely will not accede to--thereby causing the opposition to withdraw its proposal and become a "flip-flopper."

but in this case the object is to reject the proposed policy outright and its framing as a "surge".

They have introduced the term "Surge." We must avoid arguing pro or con about any so-called surge. Instead, examine what is being proposed behind their word and refame it completely, using "escalation."

That's why I like Edward's framing so much. He calls it what it is - an "escalation."

If someone argues that we need a surge to win in Iraq, say that the time for excalation of violence is over. If anything needs to escalate, it is the move toward disengagement and withdrawal, not the escalation of the violence. The American people spoke on November 7th and told this adinistration that we need to end the occupation now.

I would. I do not see any possible positive purpose in sending 30,000 more troops (or anything less than something like 300,000 troops) but, statistically, the actual probability of deaths and injuries per day would probably remain about the same to two decimal places out or so once you factored in the expected deaths per day in any group of 30,000 military-age people. If he sent 30,000, probably only 3,000 or so would be "shooters" and a significant percentage of those would be held in reserve or positioned in a defensive posture. (That's a wild-assed guess based on little experience and absolutely no data.) If the time-table return date is too far out, then call it "a long-term escalation" instead of "a surge", but if letting the President save a little face means that we get to see a definite commitment to troop withdrawals then, by all means, please let him save face.

Opening the door for troop withdrawal time-tables opens the door for talks on wholesale troop withdrawal time-tables. Give an inch, then take a mile!

I don't know what you're worried about. The President "in his role as Commander-in-Chief will maintain sole authority over the disposition of troops in Iraq and blah-blah"--you can hear it before he even says it. He won't agree to fixed time-tables, so letting him call it a surge and twisting it back on him as "by surge you mean the withdrawal will begin a short time later" cedes him nothing. He gets to hear us use the word "surge" and we get to insert the phrase "time-table for withdrawal" into the discourse.

There is nothing anyone can do if he decides to escalate except to cut off funds or impeach him, both of which are firmly off the table at the moment (dammit, Pelosi!). He can do anything he wants whether legislators agree with him or not. By appearing to agree and be cooperative, we put the onus on him to cooperate in return. If he escalates without a schedule for withdrawal, we can howl "FOUL" and public approval rating might drop below his 23% rock-solid "hero" line.

You're welcome to have a different opinion, but I'll still dissent with anything that might keep a time-table off the table. A withdrawal time-table is not only a matter of vital concern for Americans at home and "in country", but would also help us negotiate with factions in Iraq and other Arab (and Persian) nations.

We have to stop the ego appeasing politics!

I cannot support adding to the numbers of pawns at Bush's whim in Iraq. Change the commander of the operation and then you may begin talking strategy again. Bush is treating our soldiers like shit and just wanting to throw more of them at the wall to see if they'll stick.

This war is beyond us and the only way we should be participating in it now is as a part of an international peacekeeping force, preferrably led by predominantly Muslims.

This discussing our international strategy as if it is a pie bakeoff (add these numbers at this schedule) or Tuesday family Risk night, is insanity. No amount of moving game pieces around on the board will change that the chief is either totally incompetent or criminally insane. Add to that his sinister motives and allegiances.

We are better off disengaging in serious discussion of Bush's surge and doing as Edwards does, call it what it is, an escalation or intensifying the war. I think this is also a good time to do the soft sell on the military industrial complex. If you come off too indignant, people dismiss you as tinfoil hat (Now THERE'S a word we need to work on), but allow for some critical thinking in the masses. Hopefully, as the investigations into no-bid contracts, price gouging, and contractor abuses are carried out, the real benefactors will be glaringly apparent. War for oil yes, but also everything else about the war has been custom made to make select folks very stinkin' rich.

Everything wrong about this war needs to be made right before we just pour in more bodies. All the rumblings I hear from the right are about PERMANENT military levels being much higher.

As far as policy goes for the cowboy set - you are ALWAYS brave and studly when you say you want to add force, and you are ALWAYS weak and cowardly when you want to take them away. So until the thinking behind the policy changes, it is only cruel to actually entertain the idea of sending more troops.