Pentagon: Give it one final Friedman

From today's Guardian:

An elite team of officers advising US commander General David Petraeus in Baghdad has concluded the US has six months to win the war in Iraq - or face a Vietnam-style collapse in political and public support that could force the military into a hasty retreat.

Their to-do list is a bit daunting, to say the least:

By improving security, the plan's short-term aim is to create time and space for the Iraqi government to bring rival Shia, Sunni and Kurd factions together in a process of national reconciliation, us officials say. If that works within the stipulated timeframe, longer-term schemes for rebuilding Iraq under the so-called "go long" strategy will be set in motion. But the next six months are make-or-break for both the US military and the Iraqi government.

Nothing Bush, Bliar, Cheney and Rice can't handle though...right?

A few small problems remain:

The main obstacles confronting Gen Petraeus's team are:
· Insufficent numbers of troops on the ground
· A "disintegrating" international coalition
· An anticipated upsurge in violence in the south as the British leave
· Morale problems as casualties rise
· A failure of political will in Washington and/or Baghdad

"Insufficient numbers?" That's putting it mildly. Apart from the fact that we're sending troops before they're ready to go the so-called surge isn't nearly enough to do the job -- as everybody but the residents of the Beautiful White House™ know by now:

Their biggest headache was insufficient numbers of troops on the ground despite the increase ordered by Mr Bush, the former official said. "We don't have the numbers for the counter-insurgency job even with the surge. The word 'surge' is a misnomer. Strategically, tactically, it's not a surge," an American officer said.

According to the US military's revised counter-insurgency field manual, FM 3-24, authored by Gen Petraeus, the optimum "troop-to-task" ratio for Baghdad requires 120,000 US and allied troops in the city alone. Current totals, even including often unreliable Iraqi units, fall short of that number. The deficit is even greater in conflict areas outside Baghdad.

[Emphases added.]

Condi Rice: "General Shinseki Nobody ever predicted we would need substantially more troops to accomplish our goals in Iraq."

Small update: As Moondance points out, I committed the sin of redundancy -- "one final Friedman". Every Friedman is by definition final. And the Condi quote is (as far as I know) fictional, though no doubt she would say that if asked.

•  What the dems on the hill need to do

  Is start getting these people on record testifying that in 6 months, if it doesn't work its time to leave.

  There has been Friedman after Friedman the last 3 years.

  There will be pressure on the GOP though, to make this the last Friedman.  And that is the 2008 elections.  They don't want to have the same situation in Iraq, with 150,000 troops on the ground, going into Nov 2008.  They will get creamed again.  So I think they will be more amenable to making this the last Friedman before we start the drawdown.

  Bush won't be amenable to it, but GOP on the Hill should be.

  by duha on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:25:14 PM PDT

•  Maybe every memo Rice receives

  should be made public.  There just might be one person among our 300 million who speaks the same language she does, who could explain the whole thing to her.  
  I talked to the mother of a kid currently in Iraq yesterday, and she told me about all the emails she was receiving from her son's command staff, telling her "don't believe what you hear on the news, it's really going much better than it sounds"...anybody remember the little man on the Monty Python movie who keeps trying to explain to those who want to load him on the plague death cart, "No, really, I'm feeling much better, truly I am".??

  by sherlyle on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:26:43 PM PDT

•  Please, no more Friedmans! Unless the US leaves

  Iraq for one full Friedman to consider whether to return after the completion of the Friedman.  It is way past time to call a Friedman a Friedman!

  by ice2wata on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:36:32 PM PDT

  •  ...home in a Friedman..

    ..sounds good to me.  

    Home by the 4th of July.

    by sandmancan on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:46:41 PM PDT

•  By the very nature of a Friedman unit ...

  it is always the final Friedman unit :)

  The paradox is that by the very nature of a Friedman unit, there are also an infinite number of Friedman units available, unless you count the heat death of the universe...

  by Mysticdog on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:39:50 PM PDT

  •  yes, there is no such thing as a "final Freidman"

    each friedman lives in it's own glorious timeframe, only to perish and rise again renewed each six month, to once again be the only friedman there ever was.

    like a king
    the Friedman has ended, long live the Friedman

    or a phoenix, rising from it's ashes

    by holder on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 02:10:11 PM PDT

•  I'm really hoping this General Petraeus

  morphs into a superhero, leaving all his advisors and all the politicos with their stupid mouths hanging open, awestruck. We could use a superhero or 2.

  by blueteam on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:40:57 PM PDT

  •  Unhappiness

    Andrea: "Unhappy is the land that breeds no superhero."
    Galileo: No, Andrea: "Unhappy is the land that needs a superhero."

    --Brecht (more or less)

    by Paolo on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 01:48:57 PM PDT

•  last guy

  Sounds like we are back to finding out who will be the last soldier to die before we are out.  

  by Jagger on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 02:11:29 PM PDT

•  Friedmans?

  No, I'm fresh out.

  However I do have plenty of "Please Stop the War Fucking Now" certificates.

  by droogie6655321 on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 02:27:17 PM PDT

•  make that a born again Friedman

  'cause there is no such thing as the last one.

  by elmo on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 04:35:59 PM PDT