The First Cavalry Division, the Army's largest combat force, has a troop strength of approximately 15,000 persons. That includes all of their logistical support.

All of our Army combat divisions are either already engaged in vital activities, either in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere abroad, or they are back in the States on "TDY" recovering from as many as three deployments in four years and trying to "train up" raw green recruits in every occupational specialty from grunt to sophisticated weapons operation and logistics. In other words, to throw those recovering divisions into combat will very certainly condemn many of those people to become unnecessary combat casualties.

But what does Bush care? He has his legacy to think about.

Then get a patriotic stress ball.

http://westfaliasurge.cedricspringstore.com/product/1501/

He wants two years of stalling so he can dump this catastrophe onto the next poor soul running this joint. He'll get the troop levels over the course of the next six months, (six months seems to be the standard for uploading chaos there) then duck and dodge for six more, using 9/11 a couple of times, and then blame the whole debacle on the terrorist supportive Democrats who have always tried to tie his bloody hands, and the thankless Iraquis who just didn't appreciate the vivid dreams he had in store for their vile country. Lets see, that will take the better part of a year or so. Then he'll attack Iran and Somalia (again and again) to cover his retreat into retirement, if not oblivion.

The widespread use of that term gives the President too much credit -- like he's actually doing something new or different here. 20,000 troops is all he can muster, and that's not a surge, it's staying the course. That is, the course of putting just enough resources into this war to keep from calling it over, or to keep from calling it a loss, and not enough to secure or achieve anything.

Bush should have asked for 80,000 more troops and compromised with the tacit innuendo of Democratic failure, as a result, on only 20,000. You'd think these snake oil salesmen would understand bait and switch.

BTW, other than providing a mulibillion dollar subsidy to the government of Germany, why is it again we have 66,000 troops there? Or 11,000 troops in Italy, another 11,000 in the UK, 1300 each, in Belgium and Iceland, 36,000 in Japan for that matter? Seems like they have the people to move to Iraq if they wanted to do that.

As we watch and wince at the Dim Son of a Bush's desperate Orwellian oration this evening, let's pay particular attention to the Democratic and Republican responses immediately after the speech.

I'll start with MSNBC, where Keith Olbermann will be soliciting Senator Barack Obama's response.

If Obama waffles and hedges like Hillary Clinton or Joseph Biden, he'll lose me. But if Obama displays the clarity and courage of which he is capable, supports Senator Kennedy's approach, and argues for cutting our losses before we do ourselves and the Iraqis even more harm, he'll win my volunteer hours as well as my contributions if he chooses to become a candidate for 2008.

What I fear is that even Democrats and the remaining reality-based Republicans will be too feckless and gutless to curb the self-proclaimed but clearly delusional "Decider" in his neocon ideological bunker.

I've been searching for an all-embracing term to describe such cowering politicians, as well as the mongers of unreason and hatred (O'Reilly, Coulter, Beck, Limbaugh, Robertson, Rove, Broder, Kristol), who seem able to intimidate the reality-based community. The term needs to be descriptive, without adopting the technical medical terminology of pathology and delusion. Ah, I think I have it:

They are "FUEHRER-ENABLERS."

The number for the proposed 'surge' doesn't even meet replacement levels for the (official) number of U.S. troop casualties and wounded: 25,279.

But from that perspective, the number sure looms large.

An insurgence to restore some semblance of democracy and rule of law here at home might prove more useful at this point.

A red Senator in a blue state, and it's probably not a coincidence that he and Susan Collins (also up in 2008) are the first Republicans making some negative, public comments about the escalation plan.

It seems to be an early indication of what some prominent Republicans are expecting the 2008 election to be about. Even if Bush has ended up learning nothing from the 2006 election, the moderate Republicans did, and that could be a real benefit to Harry Reid's ability to get bipartisan support on a good many issues in the 110th Congress.

Mojo blog has an interesting take on the same idea this morning applied to Schwarzenegger. If we have really undergone some kind of progressive shift in 2006 (probably a big, but hopeful IF), then 2008 could well be the year of the progressive Republican. At any rate, the chasm in the party between the moderates and right-wing is becoming more obvious and it would appear that the moderates could be on the verge of taking back the party. This isn't necessarily good news for the Democrats, but it's good news for the country.

Dear Mr. Grieve,

I respectfully propose that you and your colleagues and we readers of whatever political stripe vigilantly refuse to use the word "surge." Of course, the quotation marks are meant to suggest that we disavow the word and what it refers to, but it still keeps it in the fore, and "surge" is their word. We know the game of argument and persuasian is half won by those who frame the issue and determine the rhetoric.

Let's call it what it is: escalation, increase, utter madness, etc.

Ya know, it's really sad that GW's familly never taught him the benefits of admitting when you're wrong. Or when you've been wrong. And the benefits of sincerely rectifying the wrong.

But, then, take a long, long look at Babs. You think that woman ever admitted she was wrong about anything in her entire life?

Thought not.

Ya want to know where Bush gets it...that's where.

So when is anyone going to ask since when did volunteering for this man's army become endless servitude? We keep throwing around numbers like they weren't people who have already served an inordinate number of tours of duty under the most dangerous of circumstances. It's not just destroying this nation's ability to protect itself, it's demanding way too much of a small group of people, many of whom joined for want of other employment opportunities. Unless and until I see the commentariat offer themselves or their families to enlist, I don't see why we should prolong this elitist folly (as I note the British press having just reported on a new Iraqi bill to sell off the country's resources to foreign corporations).