Surge
Last night, under fire from the 2006 elections, President Bush unveiled his new approach to Iraq. He intends to add 21,500 troops in a concerted effort to create stability in Baghdad. The rationale is that our leaving Iraq in its current chaotic condition will lead to unparalleled gains for terrorist forces in the Middle East, with dire consequences for the US, and will cause the US to lose credibility in the world, as if we currently enjoy respect anywhere. Uncomprehending, delusional, and an inability to assess facts continue to characterize Bush and his isolated followers.
Once again he is rejecting the advice of military leadership who are against the surge. Of course he has now replaced Generals Abazaid and Casey, who were opposed to this tactic, as he did General Shinseki in 2002, who wanted 200,000 troops for the occupation of Iraq. Typically, repeated claims that he always listens to the advice of senior military leadership are proven false.
What he wants to do is put our troops into the middle of a civil war, fighting in urban locations, which the military has done its best to avoid. He claims that the Iraqi military will lead the way. It, however, is permeated with Shiite supporters. Just imagine the reaction to their foot patrols in Sunni neighborhoods.
He also implies that the Sadr army will be confronted. The Washington Post quotes military experts who estimate that the Mahdi Army consists of 60,000 trained members who are more effective than the Iraq army. They will either choose to fight, which will ensure casualties to US troops and Iraqi citizens that will dwarf present numbers, or just wait it out until we leave. Bush is just postponing the inevitable.
The reality is that Iraq has descended into Shia/Sunni violence as both sides kill each other to make up for yesterday’s killings and in their quest to monopolize power in Iraq. 20,000 American troops fighting valiantly are not going to change Iraq into a stable and peaceful country. Maybe 50 or 75 thousand might be able to quiet things down except that once they were to leave, violence would resume. But we don’t have that many available as the military is stretched beyond its capacity.
The only explanation for Bush’s decision is his unwillingness to admit failure and his belief, probably somewhat true, that Americans have difficulty doing the same. His real goal appears to be to just stay for two more years (American and Iraqi deaths be damned) until his successor is inaugurated, at which time he will blame our defeat on the next President.
Bush had to do something. Other than beginning to pull out and cut our losses, there is no good plan for a disaster that we created and now cannot resolve. But having to act, he chose an approach that was tried this past summer and saw an escalation in violence, not a decrease. He is now going to bring out the big guns of fear and hype to convince the public that he is right, starting today in Georgia, one of the few places in the country where he might find a supportive reaction rather then face the 75% of Americans who are opposed to his policies as reported in the latest Post/ABC poll.
As he has done from the start, his speech described our opponents as “killers” and “terrorists”, implying that Al Qaeda jihadists are the enemy and will attack the US if allowed to win in Iraq. He doesn’t understand the warring factions of Iraqis. If he actually does, he doesn’t seem capable of explaining that fact in his speeches. He used the tired term “mistakes were made” but never described who made them or what they were. All of this goes back to the original misguided decision to invade Iraq. If you don’t understand where you went wrong; if you don’t know who you are fighting, there is no way to formulate a tactic, let alone a strategy, that will extricate the US from its present untenable situation.
Ironically, if the recent report from Somalia is true, we can see what should have been our course of action in the years following Afghanistan: surgical strikes against Al Qaeda that disrupt our real enemies without dragging the US into a quagmire.
Its time to find one of those Bush backward countdown clocks that show how many days, hours, and seconds remain in his term. It is still frighteningly too long.
Once again he is rejecting the advice of military leadership who are against the surge. Of course he has now replaced Generals Abazaid and Casey, who were opposed to this tactic, as he did General Shinseki in 2002, who wanted 200,000 troops for the occupation of Iraq. Typically, repeated claims that he always listens to the advice of senior military leadership are proven false.
What he wants to do is put our troops into the middle of a civil war, fighting in urban locations, which the military has done its best to avoid. He claims that the Iraqi military will lead the way. It, however, is permeated with Shiite supporters. Just imagine the reaction to their foot patrols in Sunni neighborhoods.
He also implies that the Sadr army will be confronted. The Washington Post quotes military experts who estimate that the Mahdi Army consists of 60,000 trained members who are more effective than the Iraq army. They will either choose to fight, which will ensure casualties to US troops and Iraqi citizens that will dwarf present numbers, or just wait it out until we leave. Bush is just postponing the inevitable.
The reality is that Iraq has descended into Shia/Sunni violence as both sides kill each other to make up for yesterday’s killings and in their quest to monopolize power in Iraq. 20,000 American troops fighting valiantly are not going to change Iraq into a stable and peaceful country. Maybe 50 or 75 thousand might be able to quiet things down except that once they were to leave, violence would resume. But we don’t have that many available as the military is stretched beyond its capacity.
The only explanation for Bush’s decision is his unwillingness to admit failure and his belief, probably somewhat true, that Americans have difficulty doing the same. His real goal appears to be to just stay for two more years (American and Iraqi deaths be damned) until his successor is inaugurated, at which time he will blame our defeat on the next President.
Bush had to do something. Other than beginning to pull out and cut our losses, there is no good plan for a disaster that we created and now cannot resolve. But having to act, he chose an approach that was tried this past summer and saw an escalation in violence, not a decrease. He is now going to bring out the big guns of fear and hype to convince the public that he is right, starting today in Georgia, one of the few places in the country where he might find a supportive reaction rather then face the 75% of Americans who are opposed to his policies as reported in the latest Post/ABC poll.
As he has done from the start, his speech described our opponents as “killers” and “terrorists”, implying that Al Qaeda jihadists are the enemy and will attack the US if allowed to win in Iraq. He doesn’t understand the warring factions of Iraqis. If he actually does, he doesn’t seem capable of explaining that fact in his speeches. He used the tired term “mistakes were made” but never described who made them or what they were. All of this goes back to the original misguided decision to invade Iraq. If you don’t understand where you went wrong; if you don’t know who you are fighting, there is no way to formulate a tactic, let alone a strategy, that will extricate the US from its present untenable situation.
Ironically, if the recent report from Somalia is true, we can see what should have been our course of action in the years following Afghanistan: surgical strikes against Al Qaeda that disrupt our real enemies without dragging the US into a quagmire.
Its time to find one of those Bush backward countdown clocks that show how many days, hours, and seconds remain in his term. It is still frighteningly too long.
posted by John Weiss at 11:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home