The Surge
The media has been calling the “surge” in Iraq, by its proper name, which is an escalation of the war. A majority of citizens in both America and Iraq do not want an escalation, but hope that we would start disengaging. America’s top military commander in Iraq, General Casey has been replaced because he told the Senate more troops were not needed.
Last month the Army and Marines issued an updated field manual on counterinsurgency, the creation of which was supervised by Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who is replacing Casey as the top American military commander in Iraq. The manual recommends a formula of “20 counterinsurgents per 1,000 residents” as “the minimum troop density required.” By that yardstick, it would take an additional 100,000-plus troops to secure Baghdad alone.
The escalation is a sham, which is not meant to achieve that undefined “victory”, Bush is always talking about. Bush’s real mission is to maintain the status quo until Jan. 20, 2009. Thereby, a new president will be perceived as responsible for loosing the war in Iraq. This is nothing but a replay of the cynical Nixon-Kissinger “decent interval” exit strategy concocted to pass the political buck as they did in Vietnam.
Bush’s plan is to send tens of thousands more troops to Iraq is opposed by both active-duty and retired generals. Whether you agree with a policy of escalation or not, Congress's involvement is fundamental to our democratic process. The people's representatives must consent to sending in more troops and spending enormous amounts of money, particularly on something as controversial as sending more troops into of a civil war.
Unlike the way we were bamboozled into this war, America must have a real conversation about how to end the nightmare of Iraq. Both Republican and Democratic members of Congress must assert its constitutional authority, because this is the only way that conversation will happen.
Last month the Army and Marines issued an updated field manual on counterinsurgency, the creation of which was supervised by Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who is replacing Casey as the top American military commander in Iraq. The manual recommends a formula of “20 counterinsurgents per 1,000 residents” as “the minimum troop density required.” By that yardstick, it would take an additional 100,000-plus troops to secure Baghdad alone.
The escalation is a sham, which is not meant to achieve that undefined “victory”, Bush is always talking about. Bush’s real mission is to maintain the status quo until Jan. 20, 2009. Thereby, a new president will be perceived as responsible for loosing the war in Iraq. This is nothing but a replay of the cynical Nixon-Kissinger “decent interval” exit strategy concocted to pass the political buck as they did in Vietnam.
Bush’s plan is to send tens of thousands more troops to Iraq is opposed by both active-duty and retired generals. Whether you agree with a policy of escalation or not, Congress's involvement is fundamental to our democratic process. The people's representatives must consent to sending in more troops and spending enormous amounts of money, particularly on something as controversial as sending more troops into of a civil war.
Unlike the way we were bamboozled into this war, America must have a real conversation about how to end the nightmare of Iraq. Both Republican and Democratic members of Congress must assert its constitutional authority, because this is the only way that conversation will happen.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home