Posted by
Jason Ivey on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 1:46:48 PM
It seems that there are two ways to go on the soon-to-be proposed troop increase in Iraq, or more specifically, Baghdad. President Bush and others, like John McCain, favor the increase as a last-ditch attempt to get the fires of sectarian violence under control and create what could optimistically be called a manageable atmosphere in the country’s capital, allowing Iraq’s own security forces to gain a foothold and the government to function in a relatively normal way.
The (apparently) inverse view is that the U.S. should withdraw all troops immediately, leaving it to the Iraqis to sort out for themselves, basically saying an increase would be too little, too late, and it’s no longer worth the loss of more American lives. This view is shared by many Democrats, including John Edwards, and a few Republicans, perhaps for different reasons.
The third view calls for a “phased withdrawal,” and has Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Ted Kennedy among its champions. This is the plan that has terms like “timetable” at its core.
(As an aside, it’s important to remember that as the Democratic congress wrestles with itself over how to respond to the imminent troop increase proposal by Bush, they cannot block the increase itself, but they can block funding, something that places them in a bit of a political pickle when it comes to the issue of troop support vs. Bush support.)
When considering the three possible approaches listed above, it seems that only the first two make sense. If the reason Iraq (specifically Baghdad) is falling deeper and deeper into a sectarian civil war is due to the lack of security, ostensibly by the American forces, as many critics have contended for nearly three years, then logically a ramping up of those forces necessary for greater security would seem to be in order. If we’re to believe that the Iraqi forces are not yet capable of putting out figurative fires and preventing attacks on civilian, and we believe that it is in our interest (as far as Iraq is important to our physical and economic security) then we would presume that the problem falls once again into our laps. The downside would be that the surge in troops does little or nothing toward quelling the violence and the subsequent further loss of life and funds would be for naught. Also, it could be argued, the greater American presence would in itself only serve to promote more violence. This last point appears weak, since Shiites and Sunnis would be killing each other, as they have for millennia, with or without the U.S. presence.
Those that favor an immediate withdrawal inadvertently side with the Rumsfeldian approach (to an extent) that places primary responsibility for the country’s security in the hands of the Iraqis themselves. The only way Iraq will ever be able to police itself, the logic goes, is if they are forced to do so. The downside to this approach, once again, would be failure by the Iraqis to halt the situation from falling further into chaos, eventually leading to what would probably be a strong-armed Shiite shadow government that would be militant in nature and allied with Iran.
The third, or “phased troop withdrawal” approach is the most non-sensical, and simply serves the interests of political trilateralists like Mrs. Clinton. If American forces have not been able to secure the capital with the current number or past number of forces, then what good could come from smaller numbers? If we’re going to withdraw regardless of the situation there, why not just do it all at once? If we’re to assume that smaller numbers of American troops equals more chaos and killing, then why would we leave any Americans there to wrestle with that situation, putting their lives at greater risk? This is yet another example of Mrs. Clinton and other political opportunists trying to straddle the fence with a foot on each side of the debate. It’s very similar to Mrs. Clinton voting in favor of the Iraq war and subsequently saying she did so with faulty information and would not do so again. As the 2008 presidential election approaches, it should be remembered that both Clintons have a long history of trying to be all things to all people, an impossible state that usually results in nothing. At least John Edwards in this case, regardless of what you think of him or his positions, stands for something based in logic rather than pure political opportunism.