IS IT WORTH ANOTHER $500 BILLION?
A preview of tomorrow in this video, from BG James Higgins (South Baghdad command - you know, the belts, etc.)? I mean, beyond the penchant for the military brass to allow themselves to be interviewed by the least seasoned media correspondents they can find, apparently (Petreaus let himself be "interviewed" by a 12 y.o. from CNN, last I saw).
The idea that "the surged worked" may be used to suggest, implicitly, that there is momentum in Iraq.
SHOULDN'T WE BE THINKING OF DOUBLING THE EFFORT, IF IT IS WORKING?
It's questionable that the facts on the ground support even the "natural" drawdown that will occur from now until July, as the military tries to get back to 12-month deployments.
Everyone says that there is a lot more work to do. It's still politically correct to say that what progress there is, is "not enough". While attacks are no longer escalating, if I can think-up a long, long list of missions, I'm sure the military can come up with some even longer.
Is the idea of "stalemate" completely off the table?
THE IMPLICIT "PETREAUS BET" ON THE PACE OF ISF GROWTH
If we could cut the next five years of projected conflict in half, to two years, shouldn't we do it? If 'the surge' worked, why won't more work even better? No one will answer those questions.
"We are moving the ball down the field", Petreaus said, when it started. Now, it only costs us $1 billion per inch and 1-2 American soldiers lives a day, instead of multiples of that..
