Now????

Looks like the 'surge' of troops into Iraq will continue to 'surge' well into 2008. As if we didn't know. We were lucky just to be told that the surge was happening in the first place, It would be more typical for them to just send another batch of troops without telling anybody.

Which is the entire policy of this Junta: "without telling anybody." Their understanding of the Nixon treason is that Tricky Dick (Nixon, not Cheney) was - get this - not secretive enough. If only he'd been more underhanded, he would have been able to use all those imaginary preznitedual powers to - what? Commit more crimes? Start more wars?

Anyway, the other part that they think Tricky screwed up was in keeping the draft. Sure, you can't reasonably fight an unpopular war half a planet away with 500,000+ troops without conscription. I mean, who the hell was going to volunteer for that?

But the draft meant the war was visible, as were the protesters. You can't fight a no-cameras no-access no-coffins war if there are bra-burning commie feminists marching all over creation, can you?

Indeed no. So Cheney's war must be fought with a volunteer force ("the army that you have"), and with as little home-side visibility as possible. That way, if there's good news you can roll cameras. We're still waiting for some of that. The rest you try to hide.

And the rest is all there is. There's not going to be a V-I Day. Not because our armed forces are not valiant and smart and in every way superior to their opponents. It's that their leadership is the opposite: cowardly and dumb and inferior to insurgent leadership (and al Qaeda leadership as well).

Let's face it: Osama bin Laden is a better leader and commander than George W. Bush. He has faced and defeated a superior foe. He has goaded a far superior enemy into squandering virtually every advantage. By being so much better all around than Georgie and Cheney and Rummy and the entire Junta, Osama has done more than he would have though possible in 100 years.

Not that he had any ties to Iraq - ever. It's just that his attack and taunting presence brought the natural forces of stupidity and over-reach that existed in the hearts of Junta members to the fore. He gave America the excuse to act on its basest impulses, and we did.

Proof today: Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno says that we need our extra troops into 2008 because we're trying something new: security.

You remember security, right? It's the linchpin to the possible success of the Iraq mission, the same linchpin that everyone (including your humble narrator) has been screaming about since before the invasion.

The possibility of 'success' in Iraq (to the extent that it has ever existed) has rested on our ability to provide real security to the population. After security, you can rebuild physically, economically, and politically. Without security, none of that is possible (it's necessary but not sufficient).

We've all known that and said that. It's why Gen. Shinseki said we'd need 300,000 troops or more. All those models they extracted from the occupation of Japan and Germany (neither being a good model for Iraq) were based on a huge occupation force in every part of the country.

But now, four years later, the extra 21,500 troops "reflects the military’s new counterinsurgency doctrine, which puts a premium on sustained efforts to try to win over a wary population."

You know what 'wins over a wary population?' Not allowing wild west lawlessness for four years. Preventing death squads and revenge killings every day all the time would probably help.

I said at the time and will repeat now: Toronto is one of the most peaceful cities in the world (for its size). I would not step a toe out of my door if the police were not there one day. Baghdad is a city of AK-47's and deadly violence. And they expect people to go to work?

Now, if only the Democrats could get their act together and start a withdrawal...