http://www.suntimes.com/news/greeley/139682,CST-EDT-GREEL17.articleNovember 17, 2006
BY ANDREW GREELEY
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.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
