It reminds me of a stand off I witnessed at a pub once, threats came from somewhere and somebody (probably management) called the cops who arrived en masse, whereupon things really hotted up. The entire pub spilled out onto the street and a stand-off ensued with police on one side of the highway being pelted at and abused by pub goers on the other. It occurred to me that the police presence was really only serving to perpetuate and exacerbate the situation. Fortunately that night, sense prevailed, the police put two and two together, got into their half a dozen cars and paddy wagons and left and pub patrons went peacefully back inside.

Dunno, Rex. Give it another decade or two, and the USA may not have a choice about China keeping the peace in the ME. “The spice must flow” etc.

However, all the leaking about this “surge” in troop forces suggests it will be yet another deliberate and cynical manipulation of the soldiers in question.

The big conceit is that “20,000 troops” means 20,000 blokes will be walking around Baghdad et al carrying rifles and trying to keep the peace. It doesn’t. The well-leaked rumour is that the force will comprise five brigades, each comprising c. 4,000 soldiers. However, due to the massive logistical tail the US Army hauls around these days, only c.1,500 of these are combat soldiers. “20,000″ troops collapses very quickly into 7,500 pairs of boots. BFD.

Additionally, only one brigade (the 2nd BCT of the 82nd division) of the rumoured five appears to have a defined start-date (end-Jan) so far. Given that the 2/82nd is already in Kuwait, serving as a reserve to cope with regional emergencies, it seems the USA doesn’t have a lot of options to beef up the numbers in Iraq. It wouldn’t surprise me if they won’t be followed by the other “promised” troops, and are being sent in purely as garnish to suggest Bush has a plan, if not a clue.

The Commanding Officer of Overwatch Battle Group (West) was Lieutenant Colonel Michael Mahy (not sure if he still is). Richard Glover on ABC 702 local radio in Sydney used to talk to him on-air quite a bit.

Now Rudd can surely ask the question – why doesn’t Howard contribute more troops if that’s what he believes. Because Howard’s present action says that either he doesn’t have confidence in the President’s assesment about how to win in Iraq anymore, or (the truth) he is trying to weasle his way out of the Iraq mess without having to admit its a failure, and without accepting more risk.

Either way – what a friend Howard’s turning out to be to the US. Rudd’s troop withdrawal position is at least honest.

Who is the commander of our troops in Iraq anyway? They truly are the invisible soldiers. I don’t know whether journalists are denied access or what they do is simply too tedious to bother reporting. Maybe Howard didn’t like the way the media made such a public hero of Peter Cosgrove in the East Timor exercise.

John F Burns ( who I think) is one of the best journalists in the Anglo world did a great piece on the behind the scenes horse trading over Saddam’s hanging. Turns out Saddam liked and trusted the Amnericans more than the Iraqi government, which in a sort of way is quite depressing.

Read the whole thing. Burns is a brillant writer and the best asset the New York Times has, which for me is saying something. Don’t much like that paper but its dman good when it is good though.

see link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/world/middleeast/07ticktock.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=e9e24c64f7b3bad3&ex=1325826000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss