Many of the wise people in this country who supported the Iraq war at the beginning now contend that the answer to the problem is to send more troops to Iraq. Sen. John McCain says that 20,000 more should be enough. Some of the military "experts" on television are hinting that 100,000 more will do the job. Rumors are being leaked from the Iraq Study Group established to shape "new strategy" that they will recommend more troops, too. The New York Times editorial page recommends more troops temporarily in Baghdad.
One begins to wonder who won the election and whether McCain plans to seek the presidency two years hence with the blood of more American men and women, to say nothing of Iraqi women and children, on his hands. One has to ask all these wise people how they know that more troops will prevent Iraqis from killing one another or merely provide more targets for snipers and roadside bombers.
What serious neutral expert could possibly predict that more troops will solve the problem? Does not all the literature on guerrilla war suggest that traditional military force, no matter how large, cannot cope with dedicated shadow warriors? There were a half million Americans in Vietnam and they could not end the war. Gen. Earle "Bus" Wheeler asked for 200,000 more troops without any guarantee that they could find the light at the end of the tunnel. Lyndon Johnson finally said "no" and in effect resigned from the presidency.
Is McCain prepared to stake his reputation for "experience" in matters military on the promise that 20,000 more American targets would win the war? Is the new secretary of defense (a member of the Iraq Study Group) willing to risk becoming a new scapegoat for more failure and more death in Iraq?
What reason is there to think that there is more that the United States government can do to "win" the Iraq war? Or to retreat from it with its dignity not in tatters? Or to provide some cover for the president's soiled legacy?
The only strategy that makes sense is that of Ronald Reagan when suicide bombers blew up a Marine barracks in Lebanon. He promptly removed the Marines and took full responsibility for the disaster. That's what brave and honorable men do when they have produced a fiasco. They don't worry about American credibility or honor. They don't talk about sending in more troops. They "cut and run," taking full responsibility for their mistakes. They don't ask more Americans to risk senseless deaths so that their leaders can try one last foolish attempt to save face.
The war is lost. It was lost before it began. The majority of the American electorate knows that. I daresay the majority of the Iraq Study Group also knows that. Some of them probably know that the only way George W. Bush can emerge with any honor from a terrible blunder that is finally his responsibility is to imitate Reagan (and John Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs or Lyndon Johnson after the Tet Offensive).
There was a sign on the Oval Office desk of Harry Truman when he was president that said, "The buck stops here." It hasn't stopped there for the last six years. Is there any chance that President Bush will abandon his conviction that he is God's agent and make a brave and honorable decision to withdraw from the Big Muddy into which he has led this nation? On the basis of his words after the election, there seems very little likelihood of that.
Might the Iraq Study Group, stuffed as it is by Bush family retainers, have the courage to recommend such a decision? How can they?
Only the president can salvage his own honor. Only he can save some of his legacy. Only he can free the Republican Party from the taint of Iraq. Those of us who have opposed the war from the beginning because it clearly could not be won (and for other reasons, too) ought to pray that God can touch his hardened heart.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
