RANGER AGAINST WAR: After the Surge <

Thursday, April 19, 2007

After the Surge

There are several problems with the Surge, but most obvious is the lack of answer to the following.

The Surge can be only one of three things:

[1] Successful

[2] Unsuccessful

[3] Somewhere in-between

What happens, given 1, 2 or 3?

The administration clearly supports the Surge, yet Ranger has heard no official discussion as to what will happen given any of the three scenarios.

If successful, are the troops coming home?

What happens if unsuccessful? Are Bush/Cheney/Gates family members going to enlist, in something akin to the spirit of the bond drives of yore?

If in-between, then what?

What are the alternate plans for these eventualities? It's called contingency planning, and the American taxpayers have the right to know what's shaking, after all, we're paying for this mess. What's alternate plan Bravo? Congress doesn't seem overly concerned, but we, the constituents, have the right to know.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Last we heard of anything resembling any kinda end game plan atall was when the Chickenhawks told us the Eye-Rackis would greet us with flowers as liberators, they'd turn the oil fields right over to ExxonMobil, worship ole Chalabi as a National Hero and start using brand new Mastercards to make down payments on brand-new Chevys to bail GM out. Maybe the neo-confused in DC are still waiting for that to happen so they can say we won. Why not?...it's probably right in line with the strange reality they must live in. Remember Mr. Cheney said we'd be at war for pretty much ever so maybe it don't matter to them so much what the plan is beyond that. I'm sure Blackwater and KBR and those war profiteer folks are just as happy if we don't have no plan. Keeps the money comin' in, Republicrats in congress gets their cut of the money pie, they get more time to figure out how to blame the whole thing on the other party and get their guy/gal elected in 08. Who in the whole shebang other than us and the Eye-Rackis (both groups of which don't count) want to talk about figuring out how to end it? Apparently, as you point out, nobody.


Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 10:25:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Killer Whale said...

Excellent observation, Ranger.

As I mnetioned in a previous post, Petraeus mutters from time to time to the writer covering his actions during the early days of the Iraq invasion "How will this end?"

Seems like tackling the questions you posed would be an obvious first step toward answering that question.

A bit off topic - what do you make of this John Derbyshire guy?
Spirit of Self-Defense [John Derbyshire]

"As NRO's designated chickenhawk, let me be the one to ask: Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake—one of them reportedly a .22.

At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands. Better yet, just jump him. Handguns aren't very accurate, even at close range. I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can't hit squat. I doubt this guy was any better than I am. And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage—your chances aren't bad.

Yes, yes, I know it's easy to say these things: but didn't the heroes of Flight 93 teach us anything? As the cliche goes—and like most cliches. It's true—none of us knows what he'd do in a dire situation like that. I hope, however, that if I thought I was going to die anyway, I'd at least take a run at the guy."

My response?

"uhh, WTF ??? !!!"

Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 10:46:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Killer Whale,

Thanks, KW. I'll let Jim answer re. Derbyshire later.

For me, I'm thinking Homeland Defense isn't quite where its at. I may write something from my p.o.v. soon,


Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 12:02:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Killer Whale said...

Hi Lisa,

Interested in reading your pov re: the inadequacies of Homeland Security.

IMO - that could be quite a massive subject to take on. Anyway, looking forward to your posting.

Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 1:50:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...


It will only be the slightest pop cultural gloss from me, I'm afraid. No penetrating analysis, but it will be what comes to my mind, L

Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 3:17:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...


It's so obvious that these questions should have been answered in the pre-planning and war gaming phase. It so incredible that they were not that it defies imagination--one can almost not comment on the absurdity of it.

I'm sure that we were still overly cocky from our Granada victory.

Re. Derbyshire: It's incredibly stupid; some people can shoot snake eyes out, and you can reload magazines rapidly. Most civilians have no combat experience, and freeze at the sound of gunfire. This why most professional hit men prefer a non-silenced weapon.

Since he's with the NRO, certainly he can understand shock-and-awe, on a personal level.

What he really needs is a good instructor, if he wants to learn how to shoot.

Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 3:35:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...


You have captured the essence of my thinking.

Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 3:42:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous R.C. Lyons, 1SG (USA, Retired) said...

Excellent point. Let the Iraqis alone for the next 231 years and see if they develop into a working democracy. If they don't, who cares, since their oil reserves will be depleted by then anyway.

It won't happen! I was stationed for two years in Tehran (1975-1977) and traveled quite a bit in the area. While the various oil rich nations of the area might pay GWB lip service and call us their "friend" they do not support the establishment of any stable democratically elected government within their sphere of influence. That democracy concept might take hold and they enjoy the many perks of being absolute monarchs/emirs/sheiks (fill in the blank).

I have no doubts that the lips say one thing but the checkbook is funding the insurgents. If GWB and his advisors don't understand this we are in worse shape than I thought.

Thursday, April 26, 2007 at 8:17:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

R.C. Lyons,

Yes, you have seen it. How could GWB et. al. not know the mouth and the checkbook say different things.

Yet that knowledge does not seem to be informing his actions in undertaking this unnecessary, detrimental war.

Jim will be back tomorrow,


Thursday, April 26, 2007 at 8:25:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...


Although your experience was in the 70's, I totally accept its relevancy for today's scenario.

I appreciate your insights, and I totally espouse on this site that if you want to get to the foundation, you must follow the money; ideology is not the driving force, contrary to the view GWB would have us believe. Same as it ever was (Talking Heads).

Somewhat off topic: I find it interesting that even the Saudi Arabians are fed up with George Bush's policies.

Thanks for your participation.

Friday, April 27, 2007 at 9:17:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home