In the department of: “What None of Our Leaders Are Telling Us.”
Suppose, just suppose the Bush administration’s 20,000-plus Troop Surge, along with extended deployments, and quicker rotations of battle-weary U.S. forces back into Iraq, just suppose that strategy works? Then what? More escalation, of course.
Would military success for U.S. forces mean they are more likely to declare victory and come home, or remain deployed? This is a trick question.
The genius of “The Surge” is that Pres. George W. Bush has diverted the war-policy debate away from his failed policy which launched an illegal war of aggression to begin with, into a discussion of “timetables” and “benchmarks.”
The unspoken assumption of the Bush War-on-Terror-policy, is that Iraq is to be a permanent occupation, a forward outpost. A permanent front-line in the never-ending war. In 2006 the voters said (and some in Congress want to say): “End the war!” The President and his allies are saying, bluntly: “No!”
The conversation is becoming more about the resulting chaos if the U.S. withdraws (never mind the absolute bedlam that already exists even in the supposedly secure “Green Zone,” with the troops there) and therefore what permanent troop level the U.S. can maintain in order to “assist” the Iraqi government, once U.S. “Combat troops” are withdrawn…or is that “reduced?” This debate has become so nuanced.
What None of Our Leaders Are Telling Us.
Many American politicians are against the war because this country is losing on the battlefield, and not because the war is morally wrong and probably illegal.
Recently, I heard the President plead for time for his new commander to implement his new plan. In his view tactical military success wins his successor in the White House an open-ended commitment to continuing the war, and gives him the license to ratchet-up his military tactics another notch or two. Brilliant!
Keep the talk about “the troops” not “the policy.”
Just by announcing The Surge and having the mock showdown with Congress over vetoed war funding legislation, the President has been given another blank check until September or October. Well into the 2008 Presidential season. Besides Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), which self-respecting Democratic presidential candidate would dare be against “the troops” that late in the season when the whole country will be in virtual full campaign-mode? Brilliant!
If The Surge is not going well by September, the President will argue for more time, and against any “timetable” for withdrawing U.S. troops, because you would not want to announce to the enemy when you’re going to stop fighting. The enemy can just wait you out.
Soldiers are now fighting and dying then, simply to honor those who before them, never should have been made to fight and die. If the U.S. pulls out now, “before the job is done,” it will dishonor those who died, goes the argument. Flawed.
The sad truth is, the American military was made to fight a war that could never be won. This president had a chip on his shoulder, and he picked a fight, and the entire country is now obliged to either line up behind this Captain Bligh, salute and then back him to the hilt with blood and treasure. Or…or we just follow him into the abyss.
If The Surge works, the President and his Neo-Con, Chicken-Hawk-advisers, will present robust arguments for continuing the war front in Iraq.
If The Surge does not work, the President and his Neo-Con We-should-fight-I’ll-hold-your-coat-advisers, will present feeble arguments for continuing the war front in Iraq.
Either way, what they are not telling us now, is that even “responsible” Democrats have already been made to understand the U.S. “Strategic interest” as it relates to an open-ended U.S. military presence in Iraq. That’s what The Surge now, or The Surge later is all about.