| « Live Hits | Prevent malware » |
Escalation in Iraq
![[mail]](img/envelope.gif){kind=small}
By all accounts, President Bush is going to announce his plan tonight to send more troops to Iraq. I feel fairly strongly that this is a terrible idea. I wrote this as a comment to a post at Voter Vault, but I'm reposting it here with a few more links. Think of it as efficiency rather than laziness.
We must get our news from different places, because I haven't noticed a big appeal to emotion on the part of people opposing this escalation. Here are the reasons I've seen.
1. It was tried in August of this year and it didn't work. The neighborhoods taken by US troops were pacified for a time, but as soon as they left, the violence returned.
2. 20,000 is not enough. McCain says this and he also says that it should be for at least 18 months.
3. There aren't 20,000 more troops to send in. We're already stretched thin with multiple and extended tours.
4. My congressman, Ike Skelton, has been saying that it's way too late for this type of strategy.
5. Abizaid and Casey, the (former) generals on the ground, oppose this plan. Bush has said all along that he'll listen to his generals when it comes to troop levels. Then when they oppose his new plan he kicks them to the curb. He'll say that they've failed and need to be replaced, which may be true, but if you want an example of choosing politics over statesmanship, look no further. This was a brilliant political maneuver. He passed the buck for all those months and now he's using them as a scapegoat for his failed policy. He'll reshuffle the chairs and start the cycle over again.
So, there are five reasons that I think this is not a good move, and none of them are emotional. Do you have some examples of what you're talking about. I did read about Ted Kennedy comparing this to LBJ's escalation in Vietnam. I guess that does invoke the strong feelings related to that war, but I don't think it's far fetched comparison.
If more troops go in I hope it works and things in Iraq improve, but have a hard time believing that it will unfold that way. He's trying to draw to an inside straight and the chips he's pushing in are actual human people with real lives and families. The casino needs to stop serving him drinks and call 1-800-BETS-OFF for him.
If you agree that this escalation is a bad idea, you can sign this petition.
4 comments
You are completely right in your observation, here in Europe people also feel this is going to be even worst than any other kind of solution.
for me there is 2 points :
1) bush is going to send those men, because they are preparing another reason for the patriot act to exist, aka they are going to protect their interest even more then before and part of this is going to war against Iran.
2) bush is impeached, no war with Iran
troops get back to the USA, and American citizens can start rebuild their own democracy.
You have given good reasons. What I am most concerned with is what the best thing to do is. Abandon it completely? That is my least favorite option.
If more troops go in I hope it works and things in Iraq improve, but have a hard time believing that it will unfold that way. He’s trying to draw to an inside straight and the chips he’s pushing in are actual human people with real lives and families.
I hear ya there and I don’t like that aspect of it too, but there are what, 150K of our men and women over there already, and 50 million people in Iraq. I want for the US to do what is best for all of them, not just the 150K or 170K of troops.
What is a better alternative?
Why did the neighborhoods return to violence? If the answer lies in a lack of police and Iraqi army forces, then perhaps a good option is to train them more, send more troops in, and do it right.
I don’t know the answer. What I do know is not to reject the proposal for the sole sake of being against war in general. You don’t do that here. We should take the best option.
Also, I am/was under the impression that the generals would be opposed to troop increases if there were no specific purposes or plan for them.
( http://citebite.com/c6y9y6i3luyn )
Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq and one of several generals who met with Gates, said he supports boosting troop levels only when there is a specific purpose for their deployment.
“I’m not necessarily opposed to the idea, but what I want to see happen is when, if we do bring more American troops here, they help us progress to our strategic objectives,” Casey told reporters during a news conference with Gates and military leaders.
I’d agree with that. So if there is a plan or purpose for the increase of troop levels, then the same generals would be for it. So would I.
These comments have been invaluable to me as is this whole site. I thank you for your comment.
Recent comments