I actually missed the President's speech the other night, and I've been trying to look into what's actually changed. Sure, he said, "In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned." I sure hope that's not the main difference. Simply put, the concept of holding territory so that the enemy doesn't retake it is so obvious that I hope that nobody had to make the suggestion. It would be like suggesting that soldiers carrying guns ought to make sure they are also carrying the right ammunition for those guns.

You may remember a speech by the President regarding eight mesurements of progress in Iraq, and a promise to release goals and information on where things stand in Iraq. I've been reading through that information, and I'm impressed with how things are going. The 12/27/06 report states that there are 134,000 Iraqi troops (pg 8; compared to about 100,000 US troops), that there are more Iraqi police than Iraqi soldiers (again, pg 8), and that there are about 15,000 non-Iraqi, non-US troops (pg 25; about half of those are British).

I've also been wondering why the President made this announcement instead of the new Secretary of Defense. Sure, if we were to add 50,000 or more troops, then the President should do it. But Rumsfeld would slowly build up 20,000 additional troops for elections and whatnot without saying anything unless asked about it.

The Democrats are making a big deal about how the President isn't following the suggestions of the politicians that made up the Iraq Study Group (which members speak Arabic, studied the Middle East, or are former generals? None of them, but they know the magic formula for success). The Washington Post is claiming that not all the military commanders like the "new" plan either. There are a few other things I've wondered about, one is how the Iraqi invasion can be the "biggest blunder in US history" and increasing troop levels is only the "biggest foreign policy mistake since Viet Nam." Since the invasion came before the increase in troop levels, the Democrats will have to admit that invading Iraq isn't as big a foreign policy blunder as Viet Nam (let alone the Trent Affair) or that increasing troop levels is only the biggest mistake since the invasion itself. Otherwise those two statements contradict each other.

Even with (misguided) public opinion in their corner, however, the Democratic party isn't quite ready to put up any real opposition. I'm fine with that. I'm not convinced that we need 20,000 more troops, but I am convinced that we don't need 20,000 fewer.

Two more Viet Nam comparisons: first, if Iraqi television showed atrocities on the scale of the Massacre at Hue, many Iraqis would celebrate in the streets about their side finally using brutal tactics. Second, Viet Nam began as a war against both conventional forces (the North Vietnamese army) and insurgents (the Viet Cong). The insurgents were defeated first, but the North Vietnamese Army was eventaully able to conquer South Viet Nam after the US withdrawal. Iraq, also started as a war against conventional forces and insurgents. But the conventional forces were defeated in three weeks, and the insurgents fight on. It's possible to defeat an insurgency, and many generals believe the President's plan is modeled after the good parts of the plan that defeated the Viet Cong thirty years ago. But I believe last year's plan was also modeled on those same good parts.

My best guess, then, is that Orson Scott Card's analysis is pretty close to the mark, and that the President is making a big deal about underscoring the commitment to winning the war. The Democrats are already announcing that they will continue their symbolic opposition until they're pretty sure how things will turn out. I think that's a mistake on their part, but it works to my advantage. Especially if the plan works.

UPDATE Some interesting aspects of the plan are discussed on Captains Quarters.

I should mention that I'm somewhat concerned that the Baghdad mission may end up being like Beirut (fourth paragraph; and yes I know the soldiers aren't being called a buffer force, but I'm concerned that they will be fighting all comers, which is much harder than simply joining one of the sides and fighting for it; although in this case they are fighting for the Iraqi government. I'm still worried).

I'm still alive.

I've noticed a recent trend to blame this year's strange weather on Global Warming, instead of el Nino. Interestingly, there is a headline that Global Warming will kill over 4.5 billion people by 2012. Problem is, that means "Global Warming could kill three quarters of the world's population in the next five years." Yeah, right.

I know, I know, credentialled scientists and all that. No, I'm not a credentialled scientist. But if you're going to claim that only about one in four humans will exist in five years, you've got to come up with something better than "because we have to act now."

Especially when credentialled scientists have been wrong in the past about overpopulation and an Ice Age that was going to start in the 1970s. And many of the non-scientists's solution is some hand-wavy "get rid of coal and oil power, but don't replace them with nuclear power."

Besides, we all know (1) oil is scarce and (2) oil prices would be lower if they weren't manipulated for political purposes. I have no idea how those points can both be true at the same time, but I've heard them so often I'm sure there's something there.