Thoughts on “The Surge”
The way I see it, there are two ways to proceed in Iraq:
1) Deploy overwhelming force to pacify the country, with an American soldier patrolling every square inch of territory.
2) Leave.
That’s it — only two ways to deal with the problem. Every move of the war thus far — from the lies about why we were invading, to the “successful” invasion itself, to the disasterous post-war “reconstruction” effort — has been plagued with incompetence and short-sightedness. The half-measure of a surge of 20,000 troops is not enough to get the job done. It’s just another motion from a President who lacks the strength of character to resolve this mess.
As people debate the effects of our departure, cautioning against a wave of chaos left behind in our wake, I can’t help but ask a simple question: “Why are we there, and what do we get out of it?” I can’t seem to find a good answer to this question.
It seems to me that we are there now to avoid forcing President Bush to admit to his mistakes. The pride of one man is holding America hostage in Iraq — and the surge is just a way of delaying it a little bit longer, so someone else — probably a Democrat — will be forced to find a real resolution to the war. And no matter what, Bush and his supporters, will blame that person for all the war’s failures, washing their hands of any responsibility for the events of the past four years.
To paraphrase Senator Jim Webb’s response to the State of the Union, someone desperately needs to show the Bush people the correct way in Iraq. And given the lack of interest around the country in continuing the war, that means showing Bush to the exit.
