Troop Surge in Iraq: President Bush's First Reckless Decision of 2007
Administration Official: Troop Surge 'More of a Political Decision Than a Military One'
Bush now wants an American troop surge while Shiite and Sunni militias are fighting each other, setting off car bombs and kidnapping enemies. They are torturing and murdering one another. The police are corrupt, and the government is not stepping up. Prime Minister Maliki appears incompetent, and recently told the Wall Street Journal he never wanted the job in the first place.
We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein posed a "grave and dangerous threat". When that proved false, it became a "liberation" where the Iraqi people would greet us with flowers. That too, sadly, has proven wrong. Saddam Hussein may have used chemical weapons on his own people, but it was with weapons supplied to him by the United States when Iraq was fighting Iran. People seem to forget that Saddam was still our "friend" at that time.
Saddam had Iraq under his thumb. That is what a dictator does. But he was a secular dictator, which means he did not rule Iraq the same way the Taliban ruled Afghanistan or how the Royal Family rules Saudi Arabia. Women were able to go to school and drive cars, the people weren't starving, and there wasn't any religious oppression because Saddam himself was not religious. I am not trying to paint a rosy picture of Saddam Hussein or defend him. But I am disturbed when I see what many Iraqis are doing to each other now that Saddam is gone. Quite frankly, he had a lid on the brutal sectarian violence taking place now. Many of these militias running around seem more frightening than Saddam ever was.
Regardless of "good intentions", we made a strategic error invading Iraq. If we go forward with the troop surge plan Bush intends to implement, the violence will get worse. Iran and North Korea love the fact that we're bogged down, hence their steady defiance over the last few years. Iraq is going to fight it's civil war whether we leave now or two decades from now. The most powerful militia will seize power eventually, and they won't do it in a voting booth. The problem is, instead of secular government - like Saddam's regime - we will see a religious fundamentalist hotbed of American hatred backed up by Iran. Regardless of how evil Saddam was, he was a thorn in the side of Iran and Al Qaeda, not an ally.
The majority of generals are against a troop surge. Most of Congress has reservations about it, and the American people are tired of hearing "sacrifice" and "we'll stay til the job is done". There is no plan, no strategy, and too much political spin... What is victory, Mr. President? If we add more troops, the Iraqis will not have the incentive to step up. Either Bush is so stubborn and full of pride that he won't bow to pressure around him but instead defy it, or he's doing this because he's got nothing to lose. Another reason is he may be that he's living in bubble, believing this is his calling. The Bible is specific about war in the Middle East. A bad sign is the fact that the two top generals, General George Casey Jr. and General John Abizaid (who are against a troop surge), were replaced. If things really do get worse, Democrats may be forced to cut off funding for the war and therefore risk a political falling out. Conservatives focused on 2008 could spin the idea that Democrats don't "support the troops". Everyone knows Iraq is a mess and no matter what we do it will be a mess. Bush would rather save his pride than do the right thing and begin a timetable for withdrawal. It's this 'cowboy' mentality of appearing tough rather than admit you've screwed up.
We are not fighting terrorism in Iraq. We are trying to stave off a civil war that has nothing to do with us. The problem is, the most likely victor will be a Shiite faction that will have the support of Iran, who will suppress women, open their arms to terrorists and will torture and kill their Sunni rivals. Once power is solidified, Iran will have a new ally, along with Syria.
Saddam may have hated the United States, but he hated his neighbors even more. The last thing we need is a unified extremist Middle East, which is exactly what we are inadvertently creating. A troop surge in Iraq will only cause more death and destruction in a region that needs to take responsibility for themselves.
Published by dogslife11
- Military Watchdog Criticizes New York Congressman for "Flippant" Attitude Toward C...A conservative military watchdog has criticized a New York Congressman for being flippant and disrespectful toward United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during recent testimony before the House Foreign Aff...
- Make More Money by Entering the Restaurant IndustryA lot of people work for eight dollars an hour, and believe they lack the skills to make more. But the restaurant industry can provide you with a drastic increase in income, and isn't as bad as you think.
Will the Military Draft Return?As of right now there is not enough support to reinstate the military draft, but Rep. Charles Rangel is seriously trying to push for it. Also, the Selective Service says it is...
Military Wives' Struggle to Providethis editorial focuses on the struggle that military wives face finding a job to suppliment the income shortfall of their servicemember spouses. It pertains mainly to families...- Deployment Grief: Preparing for a Spouse's Military DeploymentHow I handled preparing for my husband's first military deployment.
- Personal Stories About President Bush
- Social Security Reform - President Bush: Redistribute If You Want to Privatize!
- Orwellian Analysis of a Political Speech: President Bush's Inaugural Address
- Rhetorical Use of Fear by the Bush Administration
- The Troop Surge in Iraq Can Only Be Termed an Unmitigated Disaster
- Guidelines for the New Military Spouse
- Deployment Grief, II: Experiencing a Spouse's Military Deployment
- Regardless of "good intentions", we made a strategic error invading Iraq.
- We are not fighting terrorism in Iraq.
- Democrats may be forced to cut off funding for the war and therefore risk a political falling out as conservatives focus on 2008 and spin the idea that Democrats don't "support the troops".
12 Comments
Post a CommentGreat article, A.J. After seeing that Bush had committed to send more troops to Iraq, I had the same thoughts that you did. I think that so long as we keep sending more and more troops over there, the Iraqi troops (and government) aren't going to have a reason to step up and take charge of their own country, but instead rely on the U.S. to take care of things for them. I think Bush mentioned having all troops back home by 2008 and turning things back over to the Iraqis, but at this point - neither of those seem likely in the time frame he announced.
Thanks Jeff! I appreciate that...Judy, that is interesting and I agree with you. It's pretty scary. Even Pat Buchanan said this Administration needs to learn that the age of American Empire is over. I think the bottom line is this a different culture...We can take steps to secure our own country without taking essential liberties away, but we need to get out of the Middle East...To us, we can't fathom someone with a family going and blowing themselves up. But their kids grow up believing "my dad was a martyr"... It's just the way they think and behave... nothing we do militarily is going to change that.
I have to disagree with you, A.J...and Oliver. There is nothing honest, sincere, or anything else honorable. I believe time and history will prove that correct. That said, A.J., I like the way you assimilate information that requires the reader to think.
I have to agree with you on this one. It's a poor plan. It's a stupid plan. It's an arrogant plan. You get my drift!
Thanks Oliver, I've enjoyed exchanging opinions with you as well...In response to your comment regarding President Bush, I do think he is honest and sincere in his foreign policy decisions - but I don't think that makes him right. Even Oliver North yesterday appearing on "The O'Reilly Factor" opposed the troop surge plan and even compared to Lyndon Johnson escalating the war in Vietnam. There was a great article in the SF Chronical yesterday that said the Iraqis do not trust any of the police force unless they come with American troops. They said the Iraqi checkpoints are nothing more than a way for Shiites to indentify and kill Sunnis, and vice-versa. We may be training them, but when the American military's back is turned they are just killing each other in secatarian warfare.
Iraqis DID greet us "with flowers" and most of them love the U.S. (despite reports to the contrary) I have a few marine friends who are back from Iraq and tell stories and show pictures of Iraqi kids hugging their legs, and people just all over them. Most Iraqis love us. Anyway AJ, I gotta go with DD on one thing, you are certainly one likeable liberal and have had my respect since i started on here. Finally, I will say one conclusion that I have come to is this: Bush is a sincere and honest man and I believe that with all my heart, however he has made one huge mistake, and that is he truly believes that Islam is a "religion of peace" and his assumption that we would find competent people in Iraq to run Iraq has not come to fruition. Also, there will be a future conflict with Iran, and as i mentioned before, geography is vital in war. go look at a map... Bush preparing for future presidents?
Thanks again, I enjoy reading your input.
Bush proudly said in a debate with Al Gore, that the US military should never be used for "nation building"... If the Iraqis want to massacre each other, then I dont see much difference between them and Saddam. So, let them fight each other if that's what they are going to do anyway.
Thanks Daniel for all your comments, and compliments... As for Saddam, I don't mean to justify his rule and villianize Bush. I just think that as for dictators go, Saddam wasn't really anything special... He's your standard dictator. The majority of Iraqis are Shiites, and he was Sunni, so the fact that he killed off many of his Shiite rivals and drove away prominant Shiite families shouldn't be a surprise. To me, it seems like we have weakened our military, weakened our credibility in the world, and are creating more terrorists than we are killing by invading Iraq. If there is no easy solution, why add to what is already not working? And that is more military power.
As for the validity of the Troop surge, the merits of that may be worked out well by the new Commander there. In the shift change a new general-new Lieutenant General, General Petraeus, will be able to bring a new energetic moxy to the mix there. He is not the standard office bred General. That guy can do as many push-ups as a recruit fresh from boot and he knows what the core of being in the field is. I will be applying energy to his well-being while he gets his methods into this. He was the former commander of the 101st and is a very good commander and an excellent "get it done" man. Keep an eye on him.