Here's how it goes: You read a news article that reveals information about a new military policy in Iraq that not only might have been useful to you yesterday but was in fact widely available months before. You grow apopletic about what you perceive as further lies and deceptions peddled by the administration. You question your epistemology, your newfound antiwar bona fides, everything. Then, just when you feel like someone who's beaten up a policeman only to find another policeman running right at you, you go and post something so silly as this:
I've been conned again by the Bush administration. One reason I was skeptical of the surge was its very low troop levels. I couldn't see how a mere 17,500 new troops would change the dynamic in any meaningful way. And it hasn't. Yes, we've seen some calm in Baghdad, as Shiite militias lie low, but we've also seen stepped up Sunni violence in Baghdad's periphery. Now, in response to "whack-a-mole," it appears that Petraeus wants another full brigade. When you add that to the extra 4,600 announced March 10, the surge is now just shy of 30,000 more troops. Rich Lowry claims vindication. Huh? The only vindication is that Lowry believed that Bush was lying back in January, and Lowry, it appears, was right. Why did Bush "low-ball," i.e. deceive us about the numbers? My best bet is that he thought if he actually told people we'd be sending 30,000 more troops (and maybe more), Americans would balk. I would have been more impressed, of course, and more inclined to support it. But this is beside the point. The point is: why is it beyond this president to tell the truth to the American people in wartime?
That's Andrew Sullivan, writing today. He didn't support the surge three months ago, and has reluctantly admitted that it seems to be doing some good in and around Baghdad. Frankly, I'm not surprised at his shocked, shocked reaction to discoving the soldier count actually exceeds the bruited figure of 21,500.
The surge — or "Plus Up," as it's also known — was based on this report, which was available for download on this website, weeks before the president delivered this speech about sending more troops to Iraq. In that report, the following is stated in clear English:
There are three battalions in an Army brigade combat team or BCT, which, together with all of its supporting elements, numbers around 5,000 soldiers. [Italics added].
The president pledged 5 BCTs to Baghdad and 1 Marine Regiment Combat Team, or RCT, to Anbar province. (An RCT, together with all of its support elements, is comprised of slightly fewer peronnel than 1 BCT.) By my math, this means — and always did mean — that more than 25,000 soldiers would be deployed as part of the surge. Not of all of these soldiers are combat troops, however.
The figure 21,500 referred to fighting men and women. Support elements in BCTs and RCTs refer to military intelligence specialists, signals officers, MPs and personnel who are not out on patrol and therefore not directly in the line of fire.
Did the president lie? No. He was talking about combat troops in his speech. For more on what has been the case all along, see Fred Kagan's essay, "The Numbers Game," and my piece "The Surge Can Work."
The theory that the total number of soldiers being shipped to Iraq was willfully hidden from the public because the public might have, you know, opposed the surge, requires only seeing it spelled out like that to determine how absurd it is.
Of course, Andrew might have done a little reading before pronouncing on White House Deceptions That Weren't. Who was it in the administration that once said reality is whatever you want it to be?
Nice post. I learn something more challenging on different blogs everyday. It would all the time be stimulating to read content from different writers and observe a little something from their store. I’d want to use some with the content material on my blog whether or not you don’t mind. Natually I’ll provide you with a hyperlink on your net blog. Thanks for sharing.