First I gotta get out of the way the metaphor that keeps coming (so to speak) to mind when I hear the notion of a “surge” in Iraq. Let me say, before Pissed Off Patricia does:

Ewwww!

Yeah, each time I think of “surge” I think of a seedy orgasm in a very bad porn flick. Not that I’ve seen all that many bad, or good, for that matter, porn flicks. Still, using the term makes me feel dirty. So from here on out I’m going to think of “surge” as the marketing name for a new laundry detergent. Surge! It’ll wank your clothes white!

OK, back to the topic at hand. Yesterday NPR’s All Things Considered covered the policy talk at the American Enterprise Institute where they revealed their plan for Iraq, authored by Frederick W. Kagan. On NPR they told us that this position paper would look something like Bush’s “plan,” to be revealed this coming week. Oh, Bush will make the “plan” more politically palatable, because he’s scared shitless, but I’m pretty confident the Bushies will take the AEI plan lock stock and barrel. Rather than a 25,000 troop surge for the long term, Bush will try to ake it look like 10,000 for six months, but in the end the escalation will reach what Kagan has called for.

Now the interesting thing to note are the premises upon which Kagan bases his plan. They are all faulty. This is Republican incompetence writ large, and it is going to mean accelerating casualties, both American and innocent Iraqis. As such, this plan should be condemned across the internet. Yes, I’m calling for every single blogger that reads this to clap out loud, before Bush ever puts his plan in place. Don’t worry about crediting this post at All Spin Zone. Just CLAP REALLY LOUD, because this plan has as much real chance for success as Tinkerbell has to save us all. (And I must say, I think Tinkerbell is cute — I just don’t believe she will solve our problems in Iraq.)

What are those premises? Here we go!

Victory is still an option in Iraq.

What the HELL does that mean? Victory for whom? And is it different than this?

Victory in Iraq is vital to America’s security.

Not a whole lot different. It may be possible for there to be victory for the Iraqi people, but the Bush Administration has proven that American intervention hinders that victory in every single way. It is possible for the Iraqi’s to build a country where different sects of Islam can get along, but the presence of the Bush Administration’s forces have hindered that irreparably. Further, there are zero reasons for us to think that Iraq is related to American security in the slightest. We’re there, that’s for sure, and our soldiers are getting killed and maimed, but that does not mean anything concerning the security of America. That merely indicates a vast and stupid mistake by the neocons who forced through a stupid policy with the Bushies. Shame on them, and shame on all of us who don’t rise up and tell them so.

Another premise in the AEI policy:

Iraq has reached a critical point.

Well, duh! It has reached critical points about every month since Bush declared “Mission Accomplished.” That phrase is more meaningless than anything in the political lexicon. Next premise, please.

Victory in Iraq is still possible at an acceptable level of effort.

Victory is still possible? Are we going to see a definition of victory? Not in your lifetime, and not in mine. These guys, the Republican apologists for Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld will define anything as victory in the end. So I’ll agree that victory is possible, if we give them the ability to define it, and if we give them the ability to torture or run a scorched earth policy. What a freaking bunch of maniacs!

When will the mainstream media just compare the realities on the ground to the proposals put forward by these folks? I’m not holding my breath. I advise others not to do so either.

Oh, Chris at Suburban Guerrilla says “Ewww” to Kagan’s Wapo editorial.