The Surge (not the porn kind)
So, about this surge of US troops in Iraq, or escalation, or whatever the hell you want to call it that Bush is planning: Bad. Freakin'. Idea.
I could write up a post about all the reasons why, but really, it's so self-evident it seems like a waste of time. So, instead, for anyone reading this who actually doesn't know why increasing the troops in Iraq is going to be disastrous, a quote from Stephen Colbert:
"Those who don't know history... are in for a big surprise!"
Bush and Rumsfeld were in that boat in 2002, and you are too, if you think this is a good idea.
Fin.
posted by mooglar @ 5:16 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
I do not understand the surge at all. It seems to make no logical sense.
Even if I were more hawkish, this would not be my position. I would suggest a temporary draw-down while building up American forces (people and equipment) -- during which we would provid more limited intervention in order to give the Iraqi government time to step in (if it is going to). When the troops were at a stronger level, I will unleash the strength of the revised military and occupy the country for the better part of a decade.
Historically, that's the kind of committment stabilizing a nation requires.
Of course, I don't really want to do that ... but I could at least understand that plan. The surge seems to be more of the same (ineffectual) strategy.
The issue to me is: A military solution may not at all be possible ... but if it is, it will be a long-term investment. I cannot see how six month, 12 month, or even 18 month increase in troop levels will settle this problem.
And I've seen no evidence from the administration that it will. Just more posturing about how "we cannot fail" ... easy to say.
I agree with you that the "The surge seems to be more of the same (ineffectual) strategy."
It's funny, I heard a Republican congressman on NPR the other day say he was supporting the surge because "it's the only game in town," as if no other strategies had been proposed. I seem to remember there was actually a study group of some kind that had some ideas... or perhaps I'm just crazy. (Not, to be fair, that this guy is representative of the Republicans at this point... the days of lockstep lying in unison by them seem to be over, and many Republicans are as distressed by the surge as Democrats).
And, the fact is, not only can we fail, we already have. None of the goals put forth by the Bush regime in its case for the invasion of Iraq has been accomplished, and most, if not all are impossible now. The world -- and the US -- are much less safe now than before the invasion. In every conceivable way the war in Iraq has been a failur.(Of course, conservatives like to point out that we did topple Saddam, but that was just one step in achieving overarching goals that have not come to fruition). There was, possibly, a military solution at one point, but no longer. That time is past. Once the country descended into a civil war it was pretty much over, and almost no one disputes that is what has happened.
But we'll keep at it for at least the rest of the Bush Presidency, because the regime won't admit it was wrong. They'll keep going along on this untenable and doomed course until history condemns them as fools rather than admit it now and do what we can to save lives and mitigate the damage.
Post a Comment
<< Home