|
|
|
|
4/19/04 Easy Answers for Iraq Even among conservatives, including mainstream moderates like Bill Kristol and anti-establishment flamethrowers like Michael Savage, there is a strong opinion, seemingly justified in the face of recent upsurges of violence in Iraq, that we simply don't have enough troops there to do the job, and so they add to the chorus of liberal cries that the Bush administration took an unrealistically rosy view of future eventualities when they planned the invasion (the liberals divert into another territory, however, when they claim there was no plan, and that the war was unjustified). Kristol says his opinion is supported by the opinions of military experts, and there have been media rumors that some military advisors told Bush before the invasion that he would need more troops. Perhaps Kristol's sources are the authoritative ones, and perhaps it is true that some military advisors told Bush he would need more troops for the invasion or for the occupation. But that does not tell us the whole story, even if it is all true. It is possible that some advisors said more troops would be needed for the invasion. If so, they were wrong. If they were the same who said we would need more for the occupation, their advice might have been discredited by the ease of the invasion. It is possible that other advisors, of equally impressive experience and demonstrated knowledge, said that fewer troops would do the job. It is therefore not obvious from the simple premise that some advised more troops that it was a bad idea not to take their advice. The current situation on the ground might not be any less serious if we had twice the troops on the ground. For one thing, there would be twice as many targets. The enemy would not be attacking where they were strong, but where they were weaker. We already have, I would guess, ten times as many troops there as we have enemies plotting against us. What weakens us is not that we don't have enough forces, but that we don't know where they may be needed. The enemy's terrorist tactics make it difficult or impossible for a force of any size to succeed without risking destroying the confidence of the masses of Iraqi people. The enemy attack from the shadows and then blend into the crowd of a city like Fallujah, daring us to come after them so that they can pretend that we are attacking innocent civilians. If we send twice as many troops in, they will, at best, kill twice as many people the enemy (and the Democrats) can say were innocent civilians. And those who go in first will be as likely to die as those who go in first with half as many troops behind them. 300,000 troops would not be enough to secure every road, every neighborhood, or even every town in Iraq to the point where "insurgents" (that is liberal media-speak for "inhuman brutes") could not successfully kill dozens of innocent people or a handful of our troops now and then. It would be enough to put overwhelming forces in a few more, and that would just mean the enemy would attack where the forces were less overwhelming. Perhaps if we had perfect data, we could project that we would shave the rate of death for our troops by a certain amount for every so many additional troops we brought in. But then we would also have to consider the cost in morale, the likelihood that we would need to initiate the draft in order to prepare ourselves for other emergencies that might arise, and the chance therefore that public support would erode and that we might not stay the course, and therefore that the whole effort will be for nothing. These are not easy calculations, despite the apparent ease with which certain experts may say openly, behind closed doors, that they can make them better than the people who are charged to make them now. Backseat driving and Monday-morning quarterbacking are common sports in almost every venue, including military strategy and the politics of foreign policy. But let us not fool ourselves. It is possible the war plan in place behind closed doors always calculated that the current struggle might eventually happen, and that there would be predictable charges that the plan was insufficient or that more troops are required, and they might have calculated that they can weather the storm with the troops on the ground, if necessary, and call in reinforcements if necessary to turn the tide. Our forces are suffering unprecedented losses, but only if you consider the history of the last handful of easy victories. We are nowhere near to the bloodbath of Vietnam or Korea or the great battles of WWII. We lost more Marines in a terrorist attack in Lebanon than we have lost in this recent "insurgency," and the losses inflicted on the enemy have been manifold more numerous. We are winning every battle and we are winning the war. The Iraqis are still by-and-large on our side, and if we win, they will continue to be so. This is the time to steel our resolve, batten down the hatches, and support our troops, not to second-guess and play political games at the cost of the unity that we have never before lost so thoroughly, it seems to me, as we have in this war on terror. John Kerry should confine his empty rhetoric to the argument that Bush has destroyed a perfectly good economy (when it is obvious to anyone who has been watching that what actually happened is that he saved one that was falling apart when he took office), and cease pretending that he has magic wands that can make evil people good and weak-kneed appeasers into staunch opponents of corruption and tyranny, or that he would create a "plan" that would miraculously change the face of Iraq or the world. Bush has changed the world already through resolve and determination to support the good and the innocent against the evil. Let's stay the course and make the changes stick. Modified: 09/10/2004 |
|
|
All Original Content (C) 2003, 2004, 2005 SoothSeeker.Com
SoothSeeker Welcomes your Comments at letters@soothseeker.com Report problems to webmaster@soothseeker.com
Hits on this site:
|