“The U.S. occupation of Iraq has gone so wrong that, fearful of the 'defeat' label, Washington has fallen back on the gambler's folly of persisting.”

EDITORIAL

January 7, 2005

Malaysia - The Star - Original Article (English)    

[The Korea Times, South Korea]

—BBC VIDEO NEWS: U.S. Democrats urge President Bush
not to send more U.S. troops to Iraq, Jan. 5, 00:02:27

'With Iraq on his mind, Bush announces new Iraq strategy.'

[Al-Ayyam, Yemen].


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THERE are two central ways to arrest a deteriorating situation: cut your losses, or persist with more of the same in the hopes that "bad luck" will turn the corner. The U.S. occupation of Iraq has gone so wrong that, fearful of the "defeat" label, Washington has fallen back on the gambler's folly of persisting. 

The problem is that, as seems likely, when U.S. President George W. Bush unveils his "new" Iraq policy next week, he may offer a third way that could make a horrible situation far worse.  Afraid that cutting his losses might look too much like cutting and running, Bush is expected to announce the deployment of more U.S. forces instead. 

The "surge" strategy of assigning additional troops to briefly quell insurgents and stop the daily terror attacks is expected to involve some 9,000 additional soldiers.  The few American lawmakers who might support such a plan prefer a more effective number of 10,000 to 17,000 troops, which would further alienate the Democratically-controlled Congress. 

Among the shortcomings of Bush's persistence is his lack of a clear mission, uncertainty over what can militarily be done that hasn't been done before, and the very notion that the war is still winnable. Without clear and convincing answers to these questions, a "surge" is unlikely to be effective and may not even materialize. 

In the early stages of the occupation, the clamor for additional troops was quelled by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who was obsessed with a "lean" military. With Iraq far more volatile in post-Rumsfeld 2007, assigning more troops looks unfortunately like too little, too late. 

Bush critics typically cite the need for a political rather than a military solution. Bush's response has, also typically, been military rather than political. A thorough reality check is therefore in order. 

Congressional Democrats are not only opposed to sending more troops, but they are calling for the start of a pullout by mid-year. How strongly they oppose Bush fantasy gamble in Iraq will test their mettle in the newly-reconstituted House.