Petraeus: motion of the ocean

Thomas Ricks, Washington Post:  "People who have spoken with Petraeus recently said he believes that politicians and journalists have put too much emphasis on the increase in troop numbers and too little on his intention to use them differently."

Translation:   "It's not the size of the boat, it's the motion of the ocean." 

Here's how Ricks starts the very next paragraph:  "The plan calls for large numbers of Iraqi and U.S. forces to flow into a targeted area like an ocean tide."    I'll bet. 

Comments

[jr786]

I read today that the Surgin' General describes the situation as 'dire: sounds like a white knight is on the way. Somehow this reminds me of relieving Macarthur and sending Ridgeway to Korea - lots of smoke, noise and dead people but few real results; they'll make it a stalemate and call it peace. BTW, how did the Arab press react to Gen. Abazaid's being sacked?

[Craig]

You really are a cheerleader for disaster, aren't you? I actually believed all this "public diplomacy" crap for a while, but I'm not buying it, anymore.

[Craig]

jr786,

We should hope this works as well as the Korean War change in strategy did. That war was lost the minute the Chinese crossed the Yalu River. It's a fucking miracle that there *is* a South Korea, today. The whole 8th Army was asses and elbows, heading the other way, in a humiliating rout.

You should pick your examples more carefully. If we can do as well in Iraq it's a victory.

[jr786]

Craig, I have respect for Prof. Lynch so I won't take the bait, although your crudity seems to have abated. Instead I'll break a rule I was taught a long time ago and that is part of the Islamic tradition: The answer to a fool is silence. The reason I break it now, by answering you, is so that in the future you will understand that the reason that I do not answer you is because you are a fool. And peace be upon you.

[raj]

The plan calls for large numbers of Iraqi and U.S. forces to flow into a targeted area like an ocean tide."

This is funny as heck. Tides come in, and they go out. As the US forces' tide comes into an area, the local insurgents will wait until the US forces tide ebbs, after which they'll start up again. But the US forces will be able to claim a PR victory for damping down the insurgency while they're there, and the western media won't pay any attention to what happens after they leave.

It's all Public Relations.

Note to Craig: No, the Korean War was "lost" because the US was war-weary from WWII and the Korean War meant nothing but defending territory that it didn't have any particular interest in. It's highly doubtful that the Communist Chinese would be able to launch a attack on US territory from Korea.