Bush's Surge: Already started!!

Even though this seems to be a few days old, I have not seen it yet dairied here. Bill Arkin is reporting that bush's surge is already underway, even though not that many media organizations are making a big deal about it. For more, see below ...

First of all, I discovered this story when listining to NPR's "on the media" which can be listened to here

http://www.onthemedia.org/...

I think it is particularly useful to listen to the interview (it is good).

Secondly, here is part of the article:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/...

The Surge Begins!! Shhh!
The first of 3,200 soldiers from the 2nd Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division began arriving in Baghdad last week, an event that somehow the Washington Post and New York Times thought not worthy of reporting until this morning (and even then, no headline, no lead.)

I hardly ever comment on what the media writes, being a member of the mainstream media myself and too intent on actually figuring out what the government is up to than in taking the easy and narcissistic path of media "analysis" or bashing.

But when a friend sent me the military statement that the first troops had begun arriving, I found it curious that the only weekend mention I could find - and even here it was buried - was in the Los Angeles Times.

Of course the statement was issued on Friday and there was no parade to commemorate the fabulous "surge." But it was news, and its absence from the two top U.S. papers seemed strange.

Perhaps the lack of fanfare is part of the administration's strategy, I now think: the President can "announce" the arrival of new troops in his State of the Union (applause) or even better, as the administration fights with Congress over the future in Iraq, it can keep the surge low profile and talk of the long haul and the patience required - and the Iraqi responsibility -- in order to buy time.

A big announcement (applause), moreover, would merely raise expectations that the "All Americans" from Fort Bragg are actually going to save the day when in fact what they are is symbolism to show we gave it our best effort but - sorry folks - the Iraqis failed and now we need to go.

Don't think I'm right?

So it seems that regardless of what anyone says, as has been his wont, Bush is going to do what he wants and drive the country even further into the ground than it is. Like the proverbial boiling frog story, bush is continuing to slowly boil this country into destruction.

As I keep reminding people here, we need to remove this crud of leadership ASAP. We need to start a massive investigation leading to the impeachment and early removal of Bush and Cheney. Even one day early!!

Boy will I celebrate when bush is gone!!

•  Impeach Bush!!

  http://www.dkosopedia.com/...

  by jabb on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 02:55:09 PM PDT

•  They're going to shove those kids in there...

  while DC Dems debate non-binding resolutions...and then DC Dems will refuse to stop funding...because "they're in harms way already."

  Why do I think we get it coming...and going.

  by ShaShaMae on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 03:07:32 PM PDT

•  If I remember correctly from a military talking

  head when it was first announced it is a "surge" over a 5-6 month period. 4,000 marines to Anbar province and 17,500 soldiers at a rate of 3,500 (one brigade?) a month. The "plan" is to have around 30,000 in Baghdad by summertime to quell the violence so the "government" there has a chance.
  Not a snowflakes chance in hell of working but there it is, in all of it's idiotic glory. Yikes!
  Peace ;)>

  by rogerdaddy on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 03:34:33 PM PDT

•  They are already starting to go into Areas

  and the troops have already started dying.  Seven more troops killed by car bombs today.  bush has no soul. he needs to be impeached ASAP.  No more chances for bush. he has had all the chances and now has run to the end of the rope.  Impeach Now.

  by Owllwoman on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 03:40:09 PM PDT

•  If this is a surge, how can it work anyway

  now that he's announced his strategy to the world?  As Trudy Rubin wrote, it's more of a trickle here and trickle there.  I mean, if this was a real military strategy, wouldn't they just go for it w/o all of the advance notice?  

  by Zanna on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 04:02:40 PM PDT

•  Fine, cut off spending

  Let Bush be exposed for the dictator he is when he ignores Congress.

  by jfern on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 04:12:41 PM PDT

•  It's Further Along Than You Think

  A substantial part of the "surge" is actually the standard practice of "extending" the tours of units scheduled to rotate out, so many of the "surge" troops are already there. In addition to the Brigade from the 82nd (leaving us with no Reasy Brigade), I think a battalion of Marines has also been added in Anbar.

  This is a "surge" the way Bush is a "genius".

  by The Baculum King on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 04:15:44 PM PDT

•  yes, indeed -- the surge has already surged

  the Army Times reported 2 weeks ago Sunday that the 2nd Division of the 82nd Airborne had arrived in Baghdad the week before.

  here's the AP military writer's 1/11 analysis, "Iraq Troop Boost Will Mean Longer Tours," that has the 3,200 soldiers of the 2nd division of the 82nd airborne as the "one major combat unit" in Bush's plan that wasn't already scheduled to go to Iraq this year:

  The rest of the boost will come from sending a few brigades earlier than planned and extending the tours of others. Affected will be units based in Minnesota, Kansas, Georgia and Washington, said a military official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the information had not been publicly released.

  also, Sen. Lugar and Sen. Clinton were both quoted Thursday or Friday as confirming that the "surge" troops were already being deployed.

  thanks for this diary! I hope it gets lots of attention. This is yet another clueless (or is it Orwellian?) moment in the history of the U.S. news media, well worth documenting.

  by jennifer poole on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 04:20:51 PM PDT

•  The December delay

  I really think that's why Bush held off revealing his new plan until January. Those troops were already halfway there when he made his speech.

  Even if there is opposition (like maybe congress grows some balls), the surge is already a done deal.

  A friend at work received his orders a week before Christmas. He's a Navy reserve, he'll be spending the next year over there. All part of Bush's premature surge.

  by Many Dogs Barking on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 04:58:38 PM PDT

•  don't forget to mention there that

  bush has extended by 120 days the tours of those serving in afghanistan.

  my question is WHERE is he going to GET the troops?  simply extending the stays of those already there - both afghanistan and iraq, is NOT a surge - it is maintaining the status quo - yet no one in the corporate media reposts this anomoly.

  this is a numbers game that will end with tragic results... exhausted soldiers make mistakes - keeping them beyond their set time and THEN sending them into the middle of a seething civil war is already showing it's toll... seven more american soldiers died today, for a total of 74 so far this month.

  when... WHEN will someone finally listen to those who say... the emperor has no clothes!

  by edrie on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 06:22:05 PM PDT