There is a joke about a fellow driving the wrong way down a busy street where all the other traffic is headed the other way. Someone yells out to him that it is a one way street. To this he replies: “I’m only going one way!” George Bush, if he has heard the joke, must have misunderstood. He clearly has sided with the driver. Our President is nothing if not resolute and impervious. He is impervious to public opinion, expert advice, rational logic and common sense.
Every conceivable interested party, with the exception of Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Malaki (whose motives as well as his capabilities must be held suspect), has spoken out against the wisdom or even sanity of the Bush troop surge plan. Bush has declared his intention to send more than 20,000 additional American troops into Iraq and spend an additional $1 Billion dollars on “reconstruction” projects. With a cost of $500 Billion for the Iraq war to date, the additional deployment is projected to cost at least $5 Billion more per month. There is no end date indicated in the Bush “New Strategy” and he says it is justified by “commitments” from the Iraqi government to form a unity government and to end political interference with military security initiatives. There is no concrete basis for confidence that the iraqi Prime Minister can deliver. Moreover, there is no deadline or target date for the Iraqi government to meet these so-called commitments. Nor are there any defined benchmarks that the Iraqi government has to meet to demonstrate compliance with or progress on meeting its commitments. When asked what the Bush Administration would do if the Iraqi’s failed to honor these commitments, Secretary Gates replied to the Senate Committee that they would have to “re-look at this strategy.”
Military experts with intimate knowledge of Iraq have stated publicly and privately that they do not support the troop surge for a number of reasons. The most salient reasons seem to be that it will be as ineffective as prior attempts to do the same thing, costing unjustified loss of life, and also that the military does not currently have the troops to rationally commit to such an initiative. They fear that the Bush strategy will push the military beyond the breaking point, as there has been no concurrent plan developed or executed to build up troop strength prior to proposing the deployment. In addition to the effect on morale from a failed mission, military experts point out that the initiative can only be accomplished by extending existing deployments and sending troops that have already served in Iraq back into the conflict.
The American people have demonstrated quite consistently over the past year that they do not support Bush’s handling of the Iraq situation. Polls have consistently shown disapproval ratings for Bush on Iraq at 65% or more. The public opposition to the current proposal approaches 80% in recent public polls. The Congressional election last fall demonstrated a clear message from the public that a change of course in Iraq was necessary. Bush’s response was to package more of the same policies and strategy and label it “New” while proceeding to ignore the voter mandate.
The worst tragicomedy can be found in Congress. A substantial number of Republican Representatives and Senators have taken the duplicitous position that they will support the President, because he is the “Commander in Chief,” despite being unable to articulate any rational basis for supporting the troop surge plan itself. They also decline to endorse the plan specifically because of fear of the voter reaction in the next election. Those vocally supporting the deployment have failed to state any specific reason why they believe that the additional troops will be successful in bringing an end to the sectarian violence. They bandy about undefined and largely meaningless terms about “winning” the war in Iraq.
Democrats have captured control of the House of Representatives and the Senate, but seem to have utterly failed to consider or plan what they would do in the event that they gained control and needed to confront the President on his Iraq policies. They propose a weak “resolution” against the troop surge that is non-binding. Sen. Kennedy has shown the courage to introduce a Bill that would restrict government funding for any additional troop deployment, while continuing funding of current troops. The legislation would also call for a plan by the administration for a gradual redeployment of troops out of Iraq. The measure is not “new” because similar legislation was introduced in connection with the Viet Nam War to pressure the Administration to end involvement there. However, Democrats are squabbling among themselves about whether such a measure is appropriate. Ironically, the Kennedy Bill is probably the closest reflection of the voter mandate of the fall election: Support the troops; develop and implement a plan to bring them home; and end US involvement in what has become an Iraqi civil war.
The family of Ron-Michael Pellant of Minnesota represents a real life example of the impact of this political insanity. As a military reservist, he has been deployed in Iraq and was scheduled to come home in March of this year. His family learned from the media that his deployment would be extended an additional 125 days, and Ron-Michael still has not been officially informed. This tends to validate the assessments by top military professionals (Bush incidentally has relieved them of command) that the surge would require the extension of existing deployments.
Other GI’s have spoken out against the plan and troop morale will clearly be affected. Many reservists are scrambling to get out of their enlistment and reserve commitment because repeated deployment in Iraq was never what they contemplated when they signed on for the National Guard. At a time when the US Military needs to step up recruiting simply to fulfill basic staffing needs, the administration Iraq policies is further depleting the pool of recruits.
Despite this overwhelming consensus against deployment of additional troops in the middle of a civil war that most believe can only be resolved through a political solution, Bush stubbornly forges ahead with his so-called “New Strategy.” He continues to go his own “one way.” GOP Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a 2008 Presidential hopeful, publicly called the Bush troop surge proposal strategy the “worst strategic blunder since the Viet Nam War.” To paraphrase a quote borrowed from Charles Barkley: “(Chuck) may be wrong, but I doubt it!”
No comments:
Post a Comment