Our three possible new approaches to the war in Iraq
This article lays out the three options being considered for our new Iraq policy:
1. Go big.
Increase the allied forces by several hundred thousand American and Iraqi troops and police. The drawback: we don't have the troops to pull off this strategy, which might have worked if pursued from the beginning.
2. Go home.
Just what it sounds like: cut and run. The drawback: Iraq descends into chaos which would make the status quo look good, likely ending up as a failed state and a safe haven for al Quaeda and its ilk. American credibility, to say nothing of prestige, is in the dumpster for the foreseeable future. After Vietnam and Iraq, no commitment we make taken seriously by anybody, and the threat of force has greatly reduced credibility even in extreme situations. Terrorists all over the world believe- with good reason- that the United States lacks the will to effectively resist; terrorism both at home and abroad skyrockets.
3. Go long.
Commit to a long-term- but greatly reduced- presence in Iraq. Leave behind only 60,000 or so troops (current troop levels are about 140,000), aimed at training and support of Iraqis rather than fighting the war themselves. Drawbacks: The Iraqis might not be able to handle it yet. It effectively gives up any possibility of getting all of our troops out of Iraq for the foreseeable future. Since it would demand a substantial American presence on a long-term basis, it might be difficult to get Democratic support for this plan- even though it's probably the most practical one, and the only one that might actually work.
The most likely option is a hybrid, called Go Big but Short While Transitioning to Long. This would involve a massive- but very temporary- increase in American troops in order to suppress violence long enough to transition to an Iraqis fight/Americans train and support mode.
HT: Drudge
ADDENDUM: Scrappleface has its own version of the threefold plan, with what seems to have a Democratic twist:
1. Go public. Increase the leaking of top-secret documents like the one detailing the three options being considered for our future Iraq policy, achieving greater trust with the enemy through such transparency.
2. Go home. Cut and run, since America's presence in Iraq is the only reason why terrorism exists to begin with.
3. Go Mecca. Immediately amend the U.S. Constitution to bring America completely under Islamic Shariah law.
Comments
There was, of course, never any real issue in Ohio in 2004 to begin with.
About the only thing he gets right is his rueful intuition (though he obviously doesn't say it this way)that now that the Democrats have to actually take partial responsibility for what happens in Iraq, and can't merely gripe about what President Bush is doing, they're in a fix. Having to take responsibility for the consequences of what one advocates is the downside of winning elections, and when you've been as extreme and irresponsible in their positions as the Democrats have been these past six years, those consequences are apt to be severe.
Without the commitment of hundreds of thousands of troops, we cannot prevail.
We can pussyfoot arount with lesser levels and watch the casualties climb, with no discernable progress. Or troop up. Or cut out.
We need to go for it all, or we're just sacrificing our best. For no good reason.
essayh@hotmail.com