The Urge to Surge
The debate over whether to increase the number of troops in Iraq has been raging ever since the Iraq Study Group issued its report a few weeks ago recommending a temporary surge in troop levels to help control the deteriorating situation.
The Bush administration now seems to cling to a desperate belief that adding 15-30,000 more troops to the Iraq theatre could at last bring down the curtain of the conflict with some measure of applause from the American public.
Reports that the Joint Chiefs of Staff would be opposed to such an increase were summarily denied by the White House. Mr. Bush, who has publicly stated numerous times that his decision making in Iraq depends on the advice of his generals, would be in a difficult position if the reports about the Chiefs are accurate.
The election of a new Congress with a Democratic majority has been seen by most observers as a clear indication that the majority of Americans are opposed to extending the conflict in Iraq. Polls taken on the subject since the election have confirmed this opposition. Other than John McCain, who advocates a sizable and enduring rise in troop levels, few in the American government would endorse such a move. It is clear that the country has run out of patience. Mr. Bush would have to prove that an increase in the number of troops would actually result in a decrease of America’s involvement in a relatively short period of time. With the president’s approval rating at all-time lows, there are likely few who would believe him.
The Joint Chiefs may at least be capable of something that both Mr. Bush and John McCain are incapable of – strategic thinking that is based on the reality of the current conflict rather than on WWII or even Vietnam scenarios. The current war does not have defined battles to win, fixed objectives to be taken, planes to shoot down, territory to conquer or armies to defeat. What should be patently obvious to those who have considered a surge of troops is that putting more boots in Iraq will not stop car bombs. No authority, including Mr. McCain has defined what the mission will be for the new troops. Will they stand guard in front of Shiite and Sunni holy places in order to diminish the sectarian violence? Will commanders in the field order a massive invasion of Iraqi homes, garages and mosques hoping to root out the IED factories that have been decimating our soldiers? Will the surge create more Hadithas or will it just create more targets?
The unfortunate truth is that the minds behind the administration are considering one factor and one factor only when it comes to strategy for Iraq: how to make it appear that we have won an ill-conceived military venture that is in truth unwinnable. The sad fact is that the administration may now believe that throwing more US soldiers onto the flaming rubble of Iraq will somehow prevent America from realizing what it has never able to admit to itself about Vietnam -- that it was all a tragic and unnecessary waste.
The debate over whether to increase the number of troops in Iraq has been raging ever since the Iraq Study Group issued its report a few weeks ago recommending a temporary surge in troop levels to help control the deteriorating situation.
The Bush administration now seems to cling to a desperate belief that adding 15-30,000 more troops to the Iraq theatre could at last bring down the curtain of the conflict with some measure of applause from the American public.
Reports that the Joint Chiefs of Staff would be opposed to such an increase were summarily denied by the White House. Mr. Bush, who has publicly stated numerous times that his decision making in Iraq depends on the advice of his generals, would be in a difficult position if the reports about the Chiefs are accurate.
The election of a new Congress with a Democratic majority has been seen by most observers as a clear indication that the majority of Americans are opposed to extending the conflict in Iraq. Polls taken on the subject since the election have confirmed this opposition. Other than John McCain, who advocates a sizable and enduring rise in troop levels, few in the American government would endorse such a move. It is clear that the country has run out of patience. Mr. Bush would have to prove that an increase in the number of troops would actually result in a decrease of America’s involvement in a relatively short period of time. With the president’s approval rating at all-time lows, there are likely few who would believe him.
The Joint Chiefs may at least be capable of something that both Mr. Bush and John McCain are incapable of – strategic thinking that is based on the reality of the current conflict rather than on WWII or even Vietnam scenarios. The current war does not have defined battles to win, fixed objectives to be taken, planes to shoot down, territory to conquer or armies to defeat. What should be patently obvious to those who have considered a surge of troops is that putting more boots in Iraq will not stop car bombs. No authority, including Mr. McCain has defined what the mission will be for the new troops. Will they stand guard in front of Shiite and Sunni holy places in order to diminish the sectarian violence? Will commanders in the field order a massive invasion of Iraqi homes, garages and mosques hoping to root out the IED factories that have been decimating our soldiers? Will the surge create more Hadithas or will it just create more targets?
The unfortunate truth is that the minds behind the administration are considering one factor and one factor only when it comes to strategy for Iraq: how to make it appear that we have won an ill-conceived military venture that is in truth unwinnable. The sad fact is that the administration may now believe that throwing more US soldiers onto the flaming rubble of Iraq will somehow prevent America from realizing what it has never able to admit to itself about Vietnam -- that it was all a tragic and unnecessary waste.
Comments