In other words, Victory on the hoof! Surrender is no substitute for victory! God bless America and help us boil the terrorists alive! Free enterprise for Iraq is still a dream worth dying for!
President Bush is reconsidering his Iraq options in the face of doubt and questioning in the media of his manly pursuit of freedom, Kagan says in his latest Washington Post op-ed, co-authored by one of this nation's great military heroes, retired Gen. Jack Keane.
Even the headline stirs the soul of real patriots: "The Right Type of 'Surge' -- Any Troop Increase Must Be Large and Lasting."
Kagan's call for a large and lasting surge could make the difference for Bush by providing not only size but staying power as well.
He proposes at least 30,000 new combat troops to 'clear and hold' Baghdad to provide real security to the city residents.
The boldness of Kagan's clarion call could provide the needed dose of cialis needed to win in Iraq instead of the old-fashioned, impotent, weanie-shrinking cheap viagra where you gotta evacuate the troops as soon as possible or risk threatening your marriage.
As an example, if you had a plan that guaranteed 36 hours where you could 'pick your time to call the shots', that would be a terrific improvement over one or two lousy hours to pack up and leave the house. While the moderate consensus compromise position of Levitra, sounds good, why not go with the best and go all the way to victory?
The facts back up Kagan's basic points about size and staying power. According to WebMD.com,
Quote What Are the Differences Between Cialis, Levitra, and Viagra?
Cialis, Levitra, and Viagra work by a similar mechanism to cause erections. There are subtle differences in how long the drug works and how quickly it works. Levitra works a little longer than Viagra. They both take effect in about 30 minutes. With Levitra, the effects last for about 5 hours. With Viagra, the effects last approximately 4 hours.
Cialis works a bit faster (within about 15 minutes), and the effects last much longer -- up to 36 hours in some cases. Endquote
Let's let Kagan (and of course Gen. Keane) provide some voyeuristic [Definition Number 2, please! = persistent observer of misery or scandal: Early 20th century. French, "somebody who sees" -- voir "see" from Latin videre] descriptions of his plan:
Quote We need to cut through the confusion. Bringing security to Baghdad -- the essential precondition for political compromise, national reconciliation and economic development -- is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail.
The key to the success is to change the military mission -- instead of preparing for transition to Iraqi control, that mission should be to bring security to the Iraqi population. Surges aimed at accelerating the training of Iraqi forces will fail, because rising sectarian violence will destroy Iraq before the new forces can bring it under control . . .
Of all the "surge" options out there, short ones are the most dangerous. Increasing troop levels in Baghdad for three or six months would virtually ensure defeat. It takes that long for newly arrived soldiers to begin to understand the areas where they operate. Short surges would redeploy them just as they began to be effective . . . In addition, a short surge would play into the enemy's hands . . .
The size of the surge matters as much as the length. Baghdad is a large city. Any sound military plan will break the problem of bringing security to the Iraqi capital into manageable parts. But there remains a minimum level of force necessary to make adequate progress in a reasonable time.
Clearing and holding the Sunni and mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods in the center of Baghdad, which are the keys to getting the overall levels of violence down, will require around nine American combat brigades (27 battalions, in partnership with Iraqi forces, divided among some 23 districts). Since there are about five brigades in Baghdad now, achieving this level would require a surge of at least four additional combat brigades -- some 20,000 combat troops.
Moreover, it would be foolhardy to send precisely as many troops as we think we need. Sound planning requires a reserve of at least one brigade (5,000 soldiers) to respond to unexpected developments. The insurgents have bases beyond Baghdad, especially in Anbar province. Securing Baghdad requires addressing these bases -- a task that would necessitate at least two more Marine regiments (around 7,000 Marines). It is difficult to imagine a responsible plan for getting the violence in and around Baghdad under control that could succeed with fewer than 30,000 combat troops beyond the forces already in Iraq.
It is tempting to imagine that greater use of Iraqi forces could reduce the number of U.S. troops needed for this operation. The temptation must be resisted . . . We cannot allow that mission to fail simply because some Iraqi units don't show up, aren't at full strength or are less reliable than we had hoped.
The United States faces a dire situation in Iraq because of a history of half-measures. We have always sent "just enough" force to succeed if everything went according to plan. So far nothing has, and there's no reason to believe that it will. Sound military planning doesn't work this way. The only "surge" option that makes sense is both long and large. Endquote
Well, as they used to say in the old days, there you have it. A plan for victory that could only be bettered if Errol Flynn, Alan Hale and Ronald Reagan were playing the leads in such a desperate journey to save freedom from the bloody hands of the terrorists.
And there you have your ultimate American citizen multiple choice: Viagra, Levitra, or Cialis? Name your weapon's caliber, .22, .32, or the big Magnum .44? Big, long-lasting surge or premature ejaculation? Victory or shameful cut-and-run defeat?
A final warning. The Kagan-Keane plan requires only one plan, theirs, to be put into action. Trying to switch mid-stream won't work, as this caution from WebMD suggests:
Quote If One of These Drugs Isn't Effective for Erectile Dysfunction, Can I Try Another?
Because these drugs work the same way, it's unlikely that you'll have success with one if you've failed to achieve an adequate erection with another. Endquote