Surging Troops

First? Nahh couldn't be.

Ahoyhoy!

KERRRICCCKKK! NOOOOO!

Anyhow, on black holes, this excellent demo:
http://www.thinktechnologies.com/portfolio/demos/Blackhole.html

Now for deep reading.

Maliki was further quoted as saying that he did not support one way or another, but he would like a firm deadline on troop withdrawl.

Surge the resurgency of the insurgency by surgically applied surging words by serge suited surgers wanting to surge more surgeants.

Being a perfectionist but never perfect on English grammar, I make it a rule not to disparage others who make mistakes. It's just too easy to screw up.

That piece by Londono is brilliant, and it highlights how inconveniently complex the situation in Iraq is. Folks on both sides of the political spectrum like to force Iraq into something easy to understand, and with easy to understand solutions. But it really isn't that way at all, and this article helps describe why.

It just shows how inaccurate the word "surge" was to begin with. This is was not a "troop surge," it was an "escalation."

I can't believe we have a president whose speech is riddled with "like" and "uh" and "you know." Ugh.

It's, like, uh... you know, embarrassing.

One day, I do not know how long, it will be better in Iraq. By agreeing with this statement, it is not logically implied that the invasion was not a huge mistake for the U.S. In one sense many Democrats seem to, instead of finding a clear way out of the swamp, want to keep griping about the leader's decision to go there. Justifiable, but not helpful. Or, they want to run for the edge, unmindful of metaphorical minefields. Perhaps that would indeed be best, perhaps not. In other words, punt. Which is what got us there in the first place. In the meantime, the occupation is still called "war," obvious war crimes are not prosecuted, and an administration consisting of men who are likely criminally insane continues pretty much unscathed.

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/08/0082132
The wrecking crew:
How a gang of right-wing con men destroyed Washington and made a killing

Or should we just shuttle a few brigades or battlions--the 10,000 that Obama mentioned--over to Afhanistan (from Iraq?)and get involved in a long ground war there, upping the number of our troops (with aerial support, naturally), all the while depleting our treasury? Reminds me of a similar Russian scenario that took place not long ago--and we should all remember what happened to the Ruskies. Of course, CIA was involved in this proxy war. If we're really honest, we'd say that we're not at war with the Afghanis, but with factions in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

I should read a book I picked up very recently, an older one, Peter Hopkirk's "The Great Game," not the more recent one by Meyer and Brysac, "Tournament of Shadows: The Great Game and the Race for Empire in Central Asia." This tome should provide insights about imperialist aggression against Afghanistan, one of three countries whose history is profiled in the book, along with India and Tibet.

And, again, the reason we're in Iraq? When I read of the very recent oil deal by Ray Hunt with the Kurds, all I could think of was Hunt's shrewd, conniving, low-down, son-of-a-gun ol' pappy, East Texan oilman H.L. Hunt.

If I heard "surge" used as a transitive verb I might first think the person was saying "serge" -- that is transitive but it doesn't fit the context of W's statement. You can't serge troops, although their uniforms might need serging, conceivably.

My mother has a serger.

Troop surge is just another flavor of "shock and awe" -- i.e., we're big and bad and you better be afraid and submit to the Force or be annihilated. This isn't defined as "terrorism" though, for some reason.

(More Afghanistan civilians killed this weekend? I heard the headline but couldn't bear to read the story.)

What amazes me, is the gall of this administration.

Maliki spends a week touring the Persian Gulf States telling everyone he wants a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops.

We then have the White House speak for him, saying he was misunderstood.

(AB is the author of Kingmaker)

I've been reving up the black helicopters since 0300, so it's time for me to call it a day. Mudge, next time you need coffee at zero-dark-thirty, stop by for a pot. Now for my drive-by shot:

Since when has the boss ever looked to Dubya as an exemplar of good grammar? When has *anybody* done so? Sheese ....

The thing that the article points out is that the surge worked. I didn't think it would, but it did.

And shame on those who are disappointed hat it did.

The tough question, again highlighted by that article is how to prevent this achievement form deteriorating while still bringing US troops home in a reasonable time. We have a tendency to declare victory and not hold security gains very well (see Afghanistan) thus undoing everything. I think Obama is figuring this out nicely. I just hope his base will let him.

i find it difficult to understand sung words, even sometimes in english. however, i was able to poke around the internet and figure out what the kuban cossacks were singing. http://www.pobeda.ru/content/view/141/55/
(a couple words are changed, but it's close)

some of the words come from this pushkin poem:
http://www.litera.ru/stixiya/authors/pushkin/kak-nyne-sbiraetsya.html

What's a metaphor for a sticky thing that if you touch, you can't get off your hand, and can't escape the situation? Anyway, to occupy Afghanistan without admitting to the - complexities - involving its status as world heroin supplier, is so naive I can't stand it. My operating theory during all that is that the "warlords" who were "our allies" are in actuality "druglords" who were enemies of our enemies. But I'm no expert.

I haven't read the whole article so perhaps I am wrong, but are there really folks who are disappointed that the troop surge "worked"? I put "worked" in quotes, because I must admit that I am not yet convinced that its success is more than cosmetic. The surge was described by our vocabulary-challenged leadership as a new strategy in Iraq. However, it was nothing of the sort -- it was a new tactic in implementing the old strategy, which was to be bigger, badder, and more numerous than the enemy (I couldn't think of another 'b' word) so that we can kill, capture, or dispirit the enemy faster than they can recruit. The surge tactic may, in fact, ultimately succeed in implementing the strategy. The proof will be to see if the temporary gains of the surge become permanent in the aftermath, or will there be a countering surge as our troops withdraw. I will be disappointed if the receding tide of the troop surge is matched by an advancing tide of sectarian violence, but I would not be surprised. I would like to see a genuinely new strategy implemented, one that aims to decrease the recruitment rate of our enemies, rather than increasing our ability to do damage. You know, the whole business of winning hearts and minds.

I just love McCain's quotes, that he had been to Iraq "too many times," and met "too many times" with, presumably, Maliki and others. Uh, John, "too many" generally connotes an undesireable excess.

Perhaps a few less visits to Iraq and a few more to a grammar school might be in order. Of course, it's way too late for GWB. "Remedial" doesn't even begin to describe his language deficits. Or his many other deficits, for that matter.

The next irony is that this morning, many of Maliki's remarks agreeing with Obama's plan were rescinded...but not by Maliki. Or any Iraqis. It was CENTCOM who rescinded Maliki's remarks. Just think about that.

Uh-oh, the war discussion got me in a bad mood, but these satellite photos calmed me down:

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/ecology/30-most-incredible-abstract-satellite-images-of-earth/1324

Jumper, I guess you know the story of the Tar Baby, but maybe after the black hole controversy you don't want to go there?

Alexey, I finally got around to watching that rousing Kuban Cossack piece--very cool. I noticed Dana Carvey and Chevy Chase had both joined the Cossacks (I wondered what happened to them both), and I really admired that guy with the incredible, giant Fender Strato-Cheesewedge. I think they call it a Velveetalaika, don't they?

By the way, do you find it a little skeevey that the current Russian president, Medvedev, shares the same last name as one of the assassins who executed the Czar and his family? Kinda creeps me out, even though I know Medvedev is a pretty common name in Rooshia (an anti-nuke activist, among others, and an essayist, IIRC).

Mudge, I work with a man whose last name is Oswald.

L.A. Lurker,

Thanks for digging out the words and Pushkin's poem. I was really tickled when I first ran into this video clip. It partially proves that people in Russia are building bridges to its pre-revolutionary cultural past.

BC must be on Weedon's chat, but also maybe at the Crime novelist chat about George Pelecanos...some of us might even be at the Levy chat....wow, lots going on in real time in WaPo land today.

Mudge,
You are not the only one impressed by the bass balalaika.

Yeah, after the performance they have a cheese and vodka party backstage. :-)

Tim - I wasn't calling anyone in particular out by my "disappointed" comment. Rather I was trying, in a pithy way, to shame anyone who is unwilling to take a look at the situation and readjust his or her assumptions.

I see Joel has included a Facebook link for the author of that wrenching piece on African poverty.

Wait a minute. A grown-up has a Facebook page? My 17 year-old told me that anyone over 21 is specifically forbidden from joining Facebook. Or accessing any of the pages contained therein.

RD -

Well, yeah. All the adults are over on MySpace.

DLD

Padouk, a lotta people said that about Oswald (who he works for) almost since the day it happened.

(OK, that was a joke.)

Actually, CP, I was at the library with my children, checking out some summer reading.

I did read the transcript of Whedon's chat - somewhat amusing but not terribly enlightening.

Jumper, about black holes - we're typically able to detect them by the gigantic x-ray burps they emit along the axes of their rotation. The accretion disc (typcially along the equator of rotation) of detritus as it whirls into the bh emits a lot of energy too, as all the debris crashes into each other and heats up under the influence of the strong gravitiaional magnetic and gravitational fields.

Those fields' weak spots are at the poles (like all known rotating bodies with strong gravitational and magnetic fields), which is where a lot of energy from all that crushed matter squirts out, funneled by a gravitio-magnetic rifled gunbarrel.

Far from existing in empty space and only detectable by the way they bend light around them, many black holes must be awesome sights to behold visibly, with huge acretion discs of matter riding the gravitational maelstrom to destruction in a sea of hard radiation.

Bring on the tin foil hats and boxers.

Getting back on Kit for a minute, I suppose the long-term effectiveness of the surge is a matter of opinion at this point. My crystal ball's on the fritz, but my Magic 8 ball says "Too Soon to Tell".

GWB's use of English -- well, I'm probably the wrong guy to ask, but he does make me laugh sometimes. Like Norm Crosby used to.

When I'm not saying "WTF," or "Sheesh," that is.

bc

Okay -- so my question is: what's the difference between a "soldier" and a "troop"? It has always seemed to me that "troop" has the connotation of being a collection of "soldiers" -- since when has it coincided???

That's what *I* want to know from the boodle troop.

You're absolutely right, ftb. It's a misunderstanding of vocabulary that annoys me. A 'troop' is a unit of multiple soldiers; 'troops' is a reference to multiple units. I think that two things are at play here:

(1) the public figures who use the term 'troop' to mean an individual soldier are not invested in the precision of language.

(2) The individual armed services do not uniformly refer to their personnel as soldiers. The Navy has sailors and officers; the Army has soldiers; the Marines have marines (who may also be soldiers); and the Air Force has civilians (a light-hearted jest, guys; please don't drop anything on my house!).

The catchall phrase used in Mil Intel is often

warfighters

Really. I teach writing classes upon occasion within that discourse (special language) community.

My hat's aluminum, but what is a boxer?

I thought the proper word was "servicemembers."

I have ALWAYS hated that recent use of troop to mean one soldier. Like hearing "four troops were killed." YIKES! Four entire Girl Scout troops? Army troops?

Reminds me of the joke about telling Bush that three Brazilian soldiers were killed ("How much is a brazillion again?")

(And remember... troopers are not the same as troupers.)

We've just appeared on the front page, people.

Andrea Bruce's photo of the old lady in the women's home is a dead ringer Edward Hopper style painting, sans the actual window, but it's reflection is in it.

Londono's article was very fine. It was pleasure to read about our men and what they think about the role they are playing as opposed to reading more blathering by pundents who are so full of themselves.

The soldiers in this article are quite different from the ones we are watching in the HBO mini series about the beginning of the Iraqi invasion. Those kids were so young, so flip, so profane, and yet, so intent on doing their best, whatever was around the next corner. In other words, so inexperienced. The second episode was last night, will watch tonight, as we recorded it. Is anyone else watching it?

Not too difficult, ftb. A soldier is a member of the military (usually army, but not necessarily). (Yes, a sailor, marine or airman can also be a soldier.) Some somewhat misguided definitions say it refers to enlisted and non-coms, which is utter nonsense; officers are also allowed.

A troop is not a single individual, like a soldier, but a collection of them; the single person is a trooper. The collective term "the troops," actually refers to a collection of collections or group of groups, but in fact, our connotation clearly is "a whole bunch of 'em" without the nit-picking.

But in general terms, soldiers and troops are the same thing. Some sub-specialties, such as paratroopers, may be addressed as "Trooper Smith," etc. But you wouldn't especially address an ordinary dogface that way. (Sorry, Wilbrodog.)

Ever since Vietnam, the New, Modern, High-Falutin' military has changed its forms of address, so that even though privates and corporals and sergeants still exist, you don't address them that way: now they are often "Specialists": "Come here, Specialist Jones." "Good afternoon, Senior Master Chief." "Belay that, Petty Officer Johnson."

Harrumph.

I just wanna go back to Sergeant Preston, Corporal Jones, Private Baker, Chief Thompson, etc. I just wanna read his/her stripes to see what rank he/she is; I don't give a rat's patoot what his/her specialty is. They're as bad as an effing Starbucks now.

At least doctors have had the decency to remain stabilized as doctors. You'll never hear this: "Hi, I'm Master Chief Neurosurgeon Smith and this is my golfing partner, Proctologist 2nd Class Lawrence. We'll be playing through, thank you."

Padouk,

I read the Londono piece, which was great reporting, echoing what has been reported for the past 9 months.

I'm irked that for too many people the "surge" has been hijacked as shorthand for adding US troops, when most of the changes took place after we started paying Iraqi militiamen $300 a month and buying off Sadr. Petraeus describes his whole counter terrorist strategy, but Bush only emphasizes the troops.

In short, we've rehired the Iraqi army that Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld (nobody seems to want to take credit for this) ordered to be fired during Bremer's CPA. We're also very fortunate that Sadr has kept his militias under ceasefire. Whatever it cost to buy off Sadr is worth it in US lives.

Don't mistake my skepticism for "the surge" for a lack of respect for US troops in a miserable situation. My neighbor's son just left for Marine boot camp and I don't want to see him in Iraq next year standing between armed Sunnis and Shia any more than the guys in Londono's piece.

But if the lesson learned from the surge is that we send in more troops WITHOUT providing honorable employment for desperate locals, and some reasonable level of political payoffs, we'll merely repeat the mistakes of 2003-2006 when we did the former, but not the latter.

Where is Frosti today? She could settle this debate in a hurry.

Mudge, I'm happy to report that the bunker is ship-shape and ready for all who need a refuge, if necessary. The bathrooms are sparkling and the doilies and antimacassars are starched and in place. We assume those who come will bring appropriate comestibles.

Oh, and 182 days left in the current administration.

boscobobb - I think you are absolutely right. Thanks for that insightful post. The "surge" involved many important strategic decisions. It wasn't just throwing more troops into battle, which is what many people (including me) originally naively assumed - and which some people still believe.

I just hope that these underlying strategic issues are well studied and well understood .

I find Mylar-lined asbestos works best for underwear Jumper. As a student I live, like most of my cohorts, in old fire-prone buildings equipped with dubious fire escape stairwells. We had lots of interesting discussion about fireproof sleepware.

The Surge is W's most visible success of the past 4 years. This is why he is using it as a transitive verb, an intransitive verb, a noun and wish he could find it a use as an adjective. I surged the economy. The economy had showed surg(ical?) growth.

The funny part of course is that many keen observers say the so-called Anbar awakenings had little to do with the troop re-inforcement. Sometimes, timing is everything.

And Super Trooper is an excellent ABBA album.

I'm also watching "Operation Kill," VL. Have mixed feelings about it. But yes, they are very young and green, and a couple of the officers and non-coms are [sphincters], and a few are good, like that team leader (who I just know is gonna get nailed, cuz he's a good guy). On the whole, I'd say the dramatic excesses are outweighed by the otherwise general "accuracy," i.e. showing how capricious, arbitraryand absurd a lot of modern warfare is -- even when conducted by "good guys" who "know what they're doing." They are kids under stress, so no wonder sh-- happens.

I just *love* that idiot who keeps demanding they shave off their mustaches. In Vietnam after about 65 or 66 he wouldn't have lasted 24 hours in Indian Country. I don't think he's gonna be here for the end of this tour, either. And the letter home to his family is never gonna tell the truth (nor should it).

The other thing I keep thinking as I watch, VL, is that about 25 percent of those kids are gonna come home seriously PTSD. (Not considering those who don't come home at all, which is a totally separate tragedy of a different kind.)

But to me, a roughly 25-percent PTSD rate is just shocking, incomprehensible. I *believe* it; I'm just shocked by it.

Folks, watch the Jon Stewart Show tonight. He's having a frickin' FIELD DAY with the New Yorker cover, satirizing all sides.

Thank you, slyness. You are a brick, as always.

Wilbrod's talking about the evening repeat broadcast of Thursday night's show, I believe, aren't you Wilbrod?

Very good indepth analysis, 'mudge. We have two within the large extended family who have returned from Iraq, so far, no PTSD that we know of. One more is still there, but he's a civilian, so we don't know to what extent, if any, he will be affected.

I miss David Bloom, this series reminded me of him, and his bloommobile. The embeded journalist in the series is pretty non commental so far. (first episode, only)

A troop is a group of girl scouts, I believe boy scouts travel in packs. I absolutely loathe the adoption of "troop" as a synonym for a single soldier. All members of the Army are soldiers. Soldier replaced "service member" as the gender neutral term for, well, soldiers (which apparently wasn't gender neutral when the WACs were absorbed into the Army). Airmen are airmen regardless of gender, go figure. In a memo last year the Army decreed that Soldier should be capitalized in all official correspondence and publications. Warfighter is oft used, as CP noted, and was originally used to denote a difference between the folks "down range" you know with "boots on the ground" (where else would they be, unless everything is an enormous Charlie Foxtrot and they've gone Tango Uniform?). Now I see warfighter used to mean anyone in uniform, though careful writers/speakers among Army leadership are trying to stop the spread. It's a kudzu style battle I'm afraid.

I don't know if this will settle the controversy but I believe "the troops" is a phrase used correctly in reference only to a vast number of enlisted soldiers who have not yet reached the NCO level. It generally denotes those who have little authority, or voice in decisions, but who have to go out there and get the job done. I don't see it as a collection of collections of soldiers as there are much better terms to describe such things, which from smallest to largest in the Army are: soldier-squad-platoon-company-battalion (squadron)-brigade (group)-division-corps-command (army)

I know what "troop" is supposed to mean, but that doesn't seem to stop anyone from reporting that four troops were killed, meaning four soldiers.

Possibly-- I couldn't watch on Thursday. I just watched the 1 PM broadcast, TBG. Thought it was worth a shout-out, including the Volf Blitzer impression.

I think the main Jon Stewart thing on the NY cover was Tuesday, July 15, episode. http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=176626

I suspect some newspaper types (I'm not one of them) would argue that "Four troops killed" is (in their view) is acceptable hedline shorthand, the word troops being shorter (by 1 1/2 counts) than soldiers.

Wondering if the word we're groping for is "serviceman."

Heard a crazy theory the other day that maybe neutronium, the stuff of neutron stars, comes in more than one theoretical "flavor." Have not attempted yet to retrace the link.

A quibble with Mudge-there are actually fewer Specialists in the Army now than in the Vietnam era. There used to be Spec.4-5-6s who were E-4s through 6s but did not have the leadership responsibilities of the NCO (CPL, SGT, SSG). Today only the E-4 level remains and the NCO equivalent is still the Corporal. In the Army there are relatively few Corporals compared to Specialists. Privates do still exist.

Which implies "service woman" or "servicema'am," and inevitably, "serviceperson."

Whatever happened to "grunts"?

soldiers, airmen, sailors, marines

Reminds me of my tribal cousins who think being called Native American is somewhat precious. They say, if if matters, mention my tribe, as in

Crow
Absoraka (about five ways to spell this)
Kootenai (sorta like Blackfoot but not exactly)

So, I apply this thinking as in service peeps feel strongly connected to their branch brethren and sistren.

I agree on Frosti's warfighter comment; however, in these new days of war, who is NOT on the line or in the sights of the wily and quicksilver and quixotic enemy.

http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=servicemen+and+women

What happened to "Warrior", as well?

Never mind, I'm going off to hide. My head hurts from all this military taxonomic nomenclature. Where's Linnaeus when you need one?

frosti says: "Privates do still exist."

Yes, thank you. I have just verified my own.

From my point of view, "warrior" is absolutely unacceptable in describing U.S. armed forces. A warrior is an individual fighter who fights AS an individual. Membership in a larger unit has no effect on the warrior's tactics or strategy, he fights using idiosyncratic methods for idiosyncratic reasons. Warriors are what Roman soldiers mowed down regularly in their conquest of the known world. A soldier fights as a tactical unit. A warrior does not face a soldier. A warrior faces a troop (in the correct sense of the word). A troop of soldiers deploys multiple weapons simultaneously, using multiple tactical methods, and lend their strengths to support each other's weaknesses. Roman soldiers were little guys -- muscular, but little. But put 6000 Roman soldiers with short swords against an equal number of battle-crazed foam-frothing Gauls with two-handed swords, and my money backs the Romans to emerge victorious with light casualties vs. no surviving Gauls. If you get my drift.

Tim.. that explains perfectly why our president is a failure. He sees the US as a Warrior instead of a Soldier who would cooperate with fellow soldiers and win through careful thought, planning, intellect and execution (of the plan).

New kit with umbrage in it (third attempt at post; Hal is foiling us)

I don't care how many specialists or E-4s there are, Frosty; I just don't like the terms. "One" is too many. "E-4" is a ridiculous "rank" or form of address on the face of it.

When I was a copy editor on the Navy newspaper I regularly when ballistic having to convert standard military style rules to "proper" newspaper rules. Two in particular stand out: officer ranks were always all-caps and no periods, such as GEN, RADM (Rear Adm. in AP style), VADM, CAPT, LT, and so on. Ship names were also all caps: USS WASP, USS HORNET, and so on, rather than USS Wasp and USS Hornet. Both of these were 19th century holdovers from the days of teletype, when the teletype alphabet only HAD all-caps letters, and there was no choice but to write that way. But leave it to the military to hang on to a stupid style rule that was outmoded a century ago. I wound up completely writing a whole new style manual from scratch for our paper that was four pages (single-spaced) long. (This was in additional to the AP manual and supplemental to it.)

For instance, I'll bet 99% of you don't know that the descriptor for a Navy, CG, Marine or Army base goes BEFORE the geographical name: Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Marine Corps Base Quantico, Naval Station Pearl Harbor, Naval Training Center Great Lakes, or whatever. And here's the easy pneumonic way to remember this: Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort Apache, Fort Ticonderoga, or whatever; all the "Forts" go Fort-first. Ergo, so do Marine, Navy and CG posts. Only the Air Force is different: Edwards Air Force Base (name first, then type of installation).

Which is why we have Ice Station Zebra, not Zebra Ice Station.

But what the he11, I've thought one of the things our military needed were more lancers, hussars, currasiers, fusilliers, and so on. I don't know if we still have yeoman; at least Star Trek had the good sense to have them. Always thought Kirk was illegally fraternizing with Yeoman Rand. God knows, I would have.

Plain Tim reminds us of why being called Rambo is not a compliment to a soldier.

Not to go off topic (who does that here?), but hooray! I fixed the lawnmower! Turned out it just needed an oil change and the carbon sanded off the spark plug. It was still reluctant about starting, but once I got it going and ran it for a few minutes it's as good as new.

Now my back, on the other hand... think I did some damage pulling that durned starter rope so many times. Ouchies.

As CP said, New Kit!