In this week's cover article in Time magazine, Michael Duffy takes a look at the meaning of, the reasoning behind and the potential implementation of President Bush's plan to send thousands more American troops to Iraq. It's a rather fascinating and disturbing article that I would recommend reading if you have a chance. One section, in particular, stood out to me at first perusal: the examination of whether this move is "Bush's last stand".
PROBABLY YES, WHETHER BUSH INTENDS IT that way or not. There is always a chance that a surge might reduce the violence, if only for a while. But given that nothing in Iraq has gone according to plan, it seems more likely that it won't. That's why many in the military assume privately that a muscular-sounding surge now is chiefly designed to give Bush the political cover to execute a partial withdrawal on his terms later. "We think that by bringing the level of violence down and bringing the level of Iraqi support up, we will be able to begin to hand over the country," Kagan told TIME.Asked what happens if the surge fails, he added, "If the situation collapses for some other reason--loss of will in the U.S., say, or an unexpected Iraqi political meltdown, then the reduced violence will permit a more orderly withdrawal, if that becomes necessary, mitigating the effect of defeat on the U.S. military and potentially on the region." A retired colonel who served in Baghdad put it more bluntly: "We don't know whether this is a plan for victory or just to signal to Americans that we did our damnedest before pulling out."
There is one other scenario to consider: it may be that Bush won't pull out of Iraq as long as he is President. Whether it works or not, a surge of 18 to 24 months would carry Bush to the virtual end of his term. After that, Iraq becomes someone else's problem. Bush's real exit strategy in Iraq may just be to exit the presidency first.
It's quite shocking to me that at this point in the war, nearly four years after the initial invasion, "many in the military assume privately that a muscular-sounding surge now is chiefly designed to give Bush the political cover to execute a partial withdrawal on his terms later." The fact that anyone -- particularly military leaders -- would believe that George W. Bush is taking any steps that could lead towards the redeployment of American forces is simply amazing. President Bush has staked his administration on the Iraq War, using American troops to prove, as a metaphor, his resolve in the so-called "War on Terror." As such, he cannot and will not, during his tenure in office, remove troops from Iraq.
The President's "surge" proposal ensures just that, as Duffy explains in the last graf quoted above. Such a move would eat up the better portion of the next two years, delaying any future questions about the troop levels and, most importantly, questions about when to pull American forces out of Iraq, to the next President. It is neither a strategic nor political move but rather one of stubbornness and unwillingness to accept reality. The American people understand that; this is, in part, why they so overwhelmingly oppose the proposed escalation. And the sooner that those in the governing circles in Washington understand that, instead of continuing to play the President's games, the better.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 24 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
