A Rose by Any Other Name - Smells the Same; Surge or Escalation?

Viewing newcasts this week, I continue to hear how embarrasing it will be for America if we "fail" in Iraq. I hear also how we need to support a "surge" - what is a surge? In the Vietnam days, we called it "escalation".

Is the problem really that there are too few troops? I hate to tell them this, but the fact that we are still in Iraq and haven't transferred ownership of this mess to its rightful owners; the Iraqis, means that we already have failed. We hung Saddam and liberated these people from a reign of blood, chemical warfare and terror. What further moral obligations do we have in this country torn by religious and political strife?

It has been said that the definition of insanity is trying the same approach and hoping for a different result. This plan is very similar to other "plans" that have not worked. According to President Bush, the Iraqis are to "take the lead" in these efforts. The broken promises and flawed execution seen to date from the Iraqis tells me that this is not likely to be successful.

A number of Republican senators,including Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas have publically expressed the same questions many of us in the private sector are asking - how is this going to work? The concern is that these new troops will find themselves involved in "nonmilitary" violence - becoming effectively more targets for the radical factions to pick off as target practice.

A fundamental principle that most of us learn early in life is that we can't help those who won't help themselves. We offer therapy for "codependents" - so labeled as they are people who keep trying to help those who won't help themselves. Has George Bush become a codependent to the Iraqis?

The plan is to get the population under control by policing the streets. This is a strategy that failed in Vietnam, and is questionable here. The big problem - how do you tell your friends from your enemies? From the BBC News: "The potential for increased violence here is very great. And the worst kind of violence: dirty street fighting in some of Baghdad's poorest neighbourhoods, places where America's enormous technological advantage over its adversaries is eroded. In their neighbourhood bases, US and Iraqi troops will be very exposed to attack." The British government is not sending any more troops.

It is well known that corporations who are failing don't take the time to understand why their teams fail - they just throw more people at the problem. George Bush is doing just that. Classic Dilbert.

If I were in charge of this debaucle, and I am not, here are the steps I would take in formulating a plan.

1) Establish strong Middle East allies to help stabilize the situation. It is in noone's best interests to have instability in Iraq. Where are George Bush's diplomatic efforts in Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia?

2) Make sure the Iraqi government has more skin in the game - there should be four of their soldiers for every one of ours. We should make our support contingent upon their performance - Bush's plan attempts to do this but is very weak.

3) Have a clear and measurable exit strategy with milestones along the way. Every Silicon Valley startup does this, why not our government?

4) Make better use of technology. We have laser technology and new weapons technology that can very accurately hit a target. Why then are we seeing so much collateral damage? Perhaps less troops and more tech would result in a cleaner, quicker conflict.

5) Start moving troops back. It is usually only when the codependent has had enough and stops caring for the victim, that the victim starts taking care of himself. Its called tough love. It is time for some toughness in America again.

The President argues that we stand to lose a great deal if we fail in Iraq. I contend that we have already failed, and it is time to do damage control. We already have rising aggression in Syria and Iran, and escalating violence in Iraq. Our oil interests are already threatened.

Escalation, called "surges", are not the answer. We must work smarter, not harder, to solve this problem. We need to look back to the lessons of Vietnam.