At least 20 U.S. troops were killed in Iraq on Saturday, the deadliest day for American forces in two years and at a time of building congressional opposition to President Bush's decision to dispatch of more than 20,000 additional soldiers to the conflict.
The Saturday toll was the third highest of any day since the war began in March 2003, eclipsed only by 37 U.S. deaths on Jan. 26, 2005, and 28 on the third day of the U.S. invasion.
Less than two weeks after President Bush unveiled his plan to increase troop levels in Iraq, a 68-percent majority of Americans strongly (45 percent) or moderately (23 percent) oppose Bush's "surge" strategy, according to the January 17-18 Newsweek Poll. Fourteen percent moderately favor the plan and only 12 percent strongly favor it. Half (50 percent) of those polled advocate a reduction of troop levels in Iraq, versus 23 percent who want to increase the number of U.S. troops and 18 percent who want to keep troop levels the same. Generally, only 24 percent of Americans approve of how Bush is handling the war-an all-time low in the Newsweek Poll; 70 percent disapprove. And two-thirds (67 percent) say they think the United States is losing ground in its efforts to provide security and democracy in Iraq; only 24 percent say we are making progress.
Lining up behind Bush in the Senate are Republican stalwarts and a few members who have long backed sending more troops to Iraq, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. McCain, however, differs with the president in that he doesn’t think Bush’s plan goes far enough. McCain favors the “overwhelming force” propagated by former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who warned Bush’s planned Iraq invasion would require a high ration of American troops to Iraqis if it were to succeed.
Not being an enormous fan of the president or his policies, I find myself in an odd place of half-agreeing with him. I think Americans are war-weary and the long sacrifice is simply overwhelming us. It is difficult for the average American to understand wars take a very long time to achieve any real or permanent political objective, or that our casualty count—as grim as it is—is still actually remarkably low for a conflict of this size.
Allowing Iraq to collapse will surely cause us more problems and lead to more conflict, violence and death. The president’s misguided junior high social studies grasp of world history and politics led him to his fevered child’s obsession with Iraq, and our national 9/11 pain demanded an enemy we could fight. And now what’s done is done. Acting impulsively and emotionally is what got us into this mess. It is surely not the smartest way to get us out.
The only thing that will actually make a difference in the region is overwhelming force. I tend to agree with Senator McCain that the president’s 20,000-troop “surge” doesn’t go nearly far enough. But the kind of surge needed to actually make a lasting difference in the region is a surge we cannot sustain. We can send in 100,000 troops, but we can’t sustain that kind of presence in the region—and the bad guys know that. We can batten down the hatches in Iraq for a few months, maybe even a year. But we can’t keep the lid on forever. All they need to do is wait us out.
Meanwhile Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri all-Maliki appears to be playing both sides against the middle, promising the Bush administration that he’ll get tough with Shiite militias while supporting radical Shiite cleric Shiite leader Mukteda Es Sadr. By any rational standard, the Bush administration has made a terrible mess of things in Iraq, costing thousands of American and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives and hundreds of billions of dollars—all in an effort to shore up a clearly corrupt and politically impotent American-imposed government.
This business is a disaster on a scale I’d have scarcely imagined when I first began speaking out about the president’s disastrous policies. But, now, the answer indeed seems to be to go in deeper before we can get out.
Where I differ with the president, and, perhaps with Senator McCain, is I believe this “surge” should not only be much, much bigger, but should be on an extremely limited timetable and with one clear objective: an efficient withdrawal from Iraq. A pullout now would bring us ignominious footage of American soldiers falling back under the press of mobs of insurgents. Ugly scenes of mobs of Iraqi civilians begging the Americans to take them with them. These are pictures the Bush administration will attempt to avoid at all costs.
A “surge,” however, can at least temporarily stabilize the region. And, I’m all for that—so long as there is a clear objective and exit strategy in place, two things the administration never actually had. If this “surge” helps stabilize the cities and shore up the tepid and weak all-Maliki government, if the “surge” gives Iraqi troops time to catch their breath and complete their training, if it provides enough stability for an ordered and dignified withdrawal of U.S. and coalition forces—then, sure, I’m all for it.
If it’s just more open-ended fighting, more death, more tragically wounded, more of Bush’s child-like grasp of history—then it will surely be the final nail in the Bush coffin. This man has sadly undermined his own father’s great legacy by being, literally, the worst president in U.S. history. I believe that is how history will judge him.
I can scarcely speculate on how God might.
