Eugene Robinson: The Worst 'Way Forward' in Iraq

[marmar]

from CommonDreams.org:

Published on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 by the Seattle Times (Washington)
The Worst "Way Forward" in Iraq
by Eugene Robinson

Here's an idea: Let's send more U.S. troops to Iraq. The generals say it's way too late to even think about resurrecting Colin Powell's "overwhelming force" doctrine, so let's send over a modest "surge" in troop strength that has almost no chance of making any difference — except in the casualty count.

Oh, and let's not give these soldiers and Marines any sort of well-defined mission. Let's just send them out into the bloody chaos of Baghdad and the deadly badlands of Anbar province, with orders not to come back until they "get the job done."

I don't know about you, but that strikes me as a terrible idea, arguably the worst imaginable "way forward" in Iraq. So of course, this seems to be where George W. Bush is headed.

Don't assign any real significance to the fact that the president has decided to wait until the new year before announcing his next step in Iraq, because if history is any guide, all of this photo-op "consultation" he's doing is just for show — to convince us, or maybe himself, that he has an open mind. The Decider doesn't have the capacity for indecision.

Through Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, he has ruled out direct talks with Iran and Syria to try to enlist their cooperation in quelling Iraq's sectarian civil war. Through his own remarks, he has ruled out a firm timetable for a U.S. withdrawal. He has declared himself open to any and all advice, but rules out any course of action that in his estimation will "lead to defeat."

So much for the Iraq Study Group. So much for the will of the voters. As Dick Cheney helpfully spelled out just before the election, "full speed ahead."

At least the Decider is consistent. From the start, his administration's approach to this botched war has been to sort through all the tactical alternatives and pick the most counterproductive — send too few troops, disband the Iraqi army, stand by while looters destroy critical infrastructure and the social order, allow sectarian militias to fill the power vacuum, make reconstruction an afterthought and put know-nothings in charge of it.

There are more than 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now and it's unclear what they are supposed to be accomplishing. It should be obvious that to establish security in all of Iraq and disarm the sectarian militias — to conduct a proper occupation, in other words — would require a massive infusion of boots on the ground. The Pentagon says that finding even an additional 20,000 to 30,000 troops to send will be a stretch, and officials warn (perhaps a little melodramatically) that the U.S. Army is in danger of being "broken" by the demands of Bush's war.

I find it hard to believe that even this addlebrained administration is capable of breaking the Army. The generals could find 30,000 more troops to send, and I'll bet they could even find an extra 50,000 if they had to. But why?

Who would they fight? Would they ally themselves with those elusive "mainstream" Sunnis, or maybe those publicity-shy "moderate" Shiites? Would they capture and hold territory, or would they continue the practice of staying for a while, turning the job over to Iraqi forces and then watching as the militias move back in? If an extra 20,000 troops were sent to Baghdad tomorrow, could they realistically be expected to establish order in a sprawlingmegacity where an estimated two dozen armed militias now control the streets? Since we would be providing 20,000 new targets for snipers and roadside bombs, how many do we calculate will die?

It is unconscionable to think about dispatching more young men and women to Iraq without the realistic expectation that their presence will make a difference in a war that is no longer in our control.

Here in Washington, proponents of a troop "surge" speak of giving the whole Iraq adventure one last try. But they sound as if they're more concerned about projecting an image of American resolve than anything else. Does anyone think a symbolic troop increase is going to have the likes of Muqtada al-Sadr or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tossing and turning through sleepless nights?

Doubling the number of American troops in Iraq would be wrong — we need to get out, now, before we set the whole Middle East on fire — but at least a surge of that scale would have a purpose. The modest increase now on the table would be purposeless and wrong. What could be more immoral than sacrificing American blood and treasure to save face in a lost war?

Eugene Robinson's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1219-29.htm

[pwb]

1. one way forward, two ways back

[ninkasi]

2. There is one thing we don't need to lose sight of

Bush is a sociopath, and a bully. He doesn't care how many American, or Iraqi lives are lost, or damaged. To him, it's all about him, and his legacy as a "war president". He has his poor, addled little mind made up, and nothing, not the pleas of grieving wives or mothers, or the outrage of the country, will stop him, once he's made up his mind.

The fact that he's wrong doesn't matter. What matters to him is winning at any cost, but the cost will not be paid by him, or his rich buddies, it will be paid for by the death, and blood, and pain, of our sons and daughters. When my children were young teenagers, and wanted to do things I felt were too advanced, or dangerous for them, I had the following explanation. Making your own decisions comes with a price. Until you are able to pay the price of the result your decision incurred, you will not be allowed by me to make them without my input.

I told them that when they were completely self-supporting, and no longer needed to depend on me to pay for their mistakes, while I still prayed they wouldn't make them, I couldn't interfere, either, because whatever the price, it wasn't mine to pay. Bush has never, at any time in his life, had to pay a price for his mistakes. Until an adult does, they are not fit to make decisions for the rest of us. We need to exit Iraq right this minute, and get our troops home safely.