Troop surge a terrible idea

The increased talk of a "surge" in troops is indicative of several things, none of them good.

First of all, following an election that can only reasonably be viewed as an overwhelming condemnation of the President's stewardship of the Iraq war, an election that clearly indicated America's distaste with continued fighting without a clear goal or strategy for moving forward, the President is seriously contemplating -- perhaps already planning to -- not only ignore the will of the voters, but to flout it openly. In an appropriate media environment, every story about this strategy would begin, "Demonstrating continued contempt for the vast majority of the nation, as seen by the 2006 elections and consistent opinion polling, President Bush is considering/has decided . . ."

Many pundits and politicians continue to believe, against six years of evidence to the contrary, that the President will be swayed by something other than his own whims. "Experts" predicted he would reduce troop levels for the 2004 elections, then insisted he would certainly draw down for fall 2006, and now the same people are speculating that this will be part of a strategy to get out for 2008. Uhh, no. It will take months to accomplish the kind of increase that's being discussed, and there's no reason to believe it will be reversed anytime soon. First the election results were going to be the wake-up call for a reasonable Iraq policy, then people pinned their hopes on the Iraq Study Group (has any organization gone from respected, bipartisan saviors to completely ignored in a shorter time?), and now some leaders are claiming that a troop increase will help get us out of Iraq.

The people who believe the President will act appropriately have become Charlie Brown to the President's Lucy, and I'm not sure how many times he has to pull away the ball, leaving those who had faith in him flying through the air, before they refuse to play his game.

As for the "surge" itself, it's not going to work (assuming that the goal is to pacify Baghdad). It happens to coincide with the time of the year when violence traditionally wanes significantly (see page 22), so unless the increase is a colossal failure (i.e. actually manages to reverse the usual trend of decreased attacks), we won't even know if it worked until summer/fall '07. But on the merits, an inflammatory troop presence that is overwhelmingly unwanted and reviled, even one that is overwhelmingly well-intentioned at the ground level, is not helped by an increase. If the plan is for these troops to go after Sadr's Mahdi Militia, this is a horrific and massive error, and either way the President would be putting tens of thousands more men and women in harms way without a discernible goal or clear exit strategy. Not good. Even leading current generals have indicated such an effort would not be helpful.

Finally, I keep putting "surge" in quotes because the word itself seems to indicate a temporary increase. It evokes a wave, which tends to rush forward before receding. But it will take months to increase the troop level to this extent, and I see no reason why the President will draw back down anytime soon. Like a gambler on tilt, he's continuing to up his bets in an effort to save his legacy. Eventually he'll be the only one who doesn't know he's already lost.