Thoughts on Bush's "Surge the Course" policy.Now that I've thought and heard about Bush's "surge" -- I'm not exactly against it.
I feel horrible for the troops and their families because they are being ordered back to Iraq in an effort that surely won't lead to victory.
But, as a military strategy, I can't really bicker with Bush's minor increase in troop levels.
The after-speech spin told us that these troops will be used to reduce the horrific sectarian violence in Baghdad. Bush isn't "surging" enough to stop anything but it might reduce it some, for a while.
Will the extra troops significantly provoke more violence? It's kind of hard to imagine -- the death spiral is quickly accelerating, already.
What's perfectly clear is that Bush is not committing enough troops to change the course of the war. His change in leadership is probably more significant -- like his appointment of David Petraeus as the top commander in Iraq. This seems like a good, solid move.
But in almost perfect symmetry, Maliki appointed Gen. Aboud Gambar who some are saying is a major step towards a total Shiite take over of the military. When the US military "stands down" it looks inevitable that the Shiite faction running the military will "stand up."
We need a plan for defeat.
It's time for the Bush administration to make plans for the end game in Iraq.
The Bush administration is famous for their "nobody could have predicted" defense. Well, many people are talking about the Iraq civil war turning into a regional war when the Americans leave. If/when this happens, expect Bush & Co. to go on TV and claim that "nobody could have predicted a regional war of this magnitude."
And when we say, "We warned you this will happen" the conservatives will counter with, "You're happy for this war because it makes Bush look bad!"
I dearly wish the Bush Administration for once -- just for once -- would get ahead of an issue and work to prevent what we all feel could be coming around the bend: a regional war.