Déjà Vu

[unhappycamper]

Déjà Vu
Rand Beers
Posted August 2, 2007 | 02:56 PM (EST)


A tsunami of déjà vu washed over me recently as administration officials and advocates argued that good things are happening in Iraq while they pressed for more time for success to play out. Haven't we heard since the Iraq War turned badly in late 2003 that the seeds of success were just beginning to sprout, that the military was now moving to the right counterinsurgency strategy, that Iraqi security forces were finally taking the lead, and that a political solution was within sight? And in the last go-round, weren't we promised that another increment of force would solve Iraq's woes and lead to political reconciliation? I feel like we have turned so many corners that we are back where we started.

I served as a Marine rifle company commander in Vietnam, and today's Iraq debate takes me back there. It sadly reminds me of the "light at the end of the tunnel" syndrome that affected policy makers and senior military seeking to defend their policies and argue for more troops and time. Bright, well-intentioned people can believe that they can rescue a failing strategy with a policy shift here and a tactical redirection there, but at some point someone has to ask whether the strategy is, in fact, retrievable. Someone has to be prepared to say "enough."

If we are battling an "insurgency" in order to help Iraqis achieve a political solution, then we do not have enough security forces by any standard. In classic fashion, the "insurgents" disappear where we are strong and attack where we are weak, and U.S. forces are insufficient in number to deny the enemy mobility. Success in Anbar leads to conflict in Diyala. Pacifying a few Baghdad neighborhoods means ignoring Basra's growing chaos. A political settlement is unattainable while the enemy believes military success is possible. And against an external opponent like the U.S., stalemate equals success.

If, on the other hand as President Bush argues, we are involved in an existential "struggle for civilization" and Iraq is the "central front" in the Global War on Terrorism, then we are even more woefully undermanned. Why hand the enemy any advantage? Where is the overwhelming force? Why half-measures?

In either case, if one believes military force begets success in Iraq, the Bush Administration has been unprepared to commit the forces needed to carry out the strategy it has articulated. An additional 100,000 troops might have made the surge successful. Mobilization of the Guard and Reserve and a draft might have prevented the chaos we are now facing. But evaporating popular support has made the domestic political consequences of a serious troop increase unacceptable.

If we cannot muster the necessary manpower and resources for this war, we are short-changing our troops. If we cannot retain the support of the American public, we are separating our soldiers from our citizens. If we have Iraqi partners unprepared to make the tough political decisions needed and Iraqi security forces with little commitment to the Iraqi nation, we cannot ask our soldiers and Marines to be more willing to defend Iraq's future than Iraqis themselves.


more

[AndyA]

1. Today reminds me in so many ways of the late sixties-early seventies era.

The public is not as engaged now as it was back then, but we are more engaged now than we have been in a long time.

We're fighting a war that we should have never fought in the first place.

We have a President in office who is a liar, a crook, and needs to be impeached.

The conservatives are trying to tell everyone else how to live their lives, even though they themselves don't seem to follow their own rules.

There are a lot of similarities, and a few glaring contrasts.

Back then, we had a media that consisted of journalists who had the desire to report the news in a factual manner. Today, we do not. All the media conglomerates are owned by bigger corporations, which seem to set the standard for what is and is not reported.

We need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, updated for today's world. We need to end the war and bring the troops home, and we need to impeach this sorry excuse for a pResident that we currently have. And his cronies, too.

[DearAbby]

2. Just like

the insurgency is in the last throes...good things are happening in Iraq. Sure the bombs are still going off killing more and more. There is no dependable electricity, hospitals, schools, security, government...and it's been how long? BILLIONS has been given to Haliburton to rebuild, all these years...they repeat the same lies, sort of like catapulting the propaganda.

They sent in more troops, calling it a temporary surge. That was all that was needed. Now they claim they need more time, give the surge some more time. I am waiting for "the insurgency is in its last throes", "the Terrorists are on the run"

.. not Osama. He is going to die peacefully of natural causes in his own bed. The man this government claimed was responsible of killing over 3,000 People on 9/11. but has little evidence he was really involved. Ol Osama isnt running, hell he isnt hiding in some dark dusty cave somewhere.

Was the main objective "total chaos"? Just what the hell is good in Iraq? We have been lied too so much by our own government, why in the hell do they expect us to believe them? Our own government promises democracy in Iraq, and is killing it here.

Stop this merry-go-round. I am getting sick. Maybe the objective was "Total Chaos" how better to empty our treasury, and steal the rights of the Iraqi oil too?