Senator John McCain wrote a guest post for Power Line. He writes:
Debate in recent days has focused on the possibility of “surging� U.S. combat forces in Iraq. Security is the precondition for political progress and economic development, and we need more troops on the ground. But to make a real difference, any surge must be substantial and sustained.
During my recent trip to Iraq, commanders spoke of adding as many as five additional brigades in Baghdad, and one or two additional brigades in Anbar Province. This, I believe, is the minimum we should consider. It would be far better to have too many reinforcements in Iraq than to suffer, once again, the tragic results of insufficient force levels.The mission of these troops would be to implement the thus-far-elusive “hold� element of the military’s “clear, hold, build� strategy: to maintain security in cleared areas, to protect the population, and to impose the government’s authority. Our troops would work in cooperation with Iraqi forces, and stay in place until the completion of their mission.
The worst of all worlds would be a small, short surge of U.S. forces. We have tried small surges in the past, and they have been ineffective because our commanders lacked the forces necessary to hold territory after it was cleared. A short surge would have all the drawbacks associated with greater deployments without giving our troops the time they need to be effective.
He goes on to write that he believes that success can still be achieved and that failure in Iraq would be a disaster for – obviously – Iraq itself and for the U.S. (in the war against terrorism). Again, you can read his entire guest post at Power Line.
Indeed, failure in Iraq would be disastrous. That is why – up to this day – I do not understand why especially Rumsfeld refused to do what the military told him to do: send more troops when it could actually still accomplish something. Failure in Iraq would indeed be disastrous, that is why I do not understand why it has been messed up as much as it has. Failure in Iraq would indeed be disastrous, that is why I don’t understand why the post-war plan was as bad as it was. Failure in Iraq would indeed be disastrous, which is why I don’t understand why… the list goes on and on.
Can ‘victory’ still be achieved? I think not. It seems to me that the chaos is too wide spread as it is, however I also believe that all of us should have an open mind on this: if the Bush administration or people like Senator John McCain come up with a clear plan, with good calculations and if the plan has the support of the U.S. military, it seems to me, that it is a plan worth considering supporting. As it is however, reports seem to imply that the military does not believe that a ‘surge’ will do the trick. Besides that, there is much more to today’s chaos than a mere lack of troops. It’s far from the only cause of today’s problems. The main problem is a political and / or social one: can the opposing sides be brought together to do what’s in the best interest of Iraq / the Iraqi people? Isn’t the hatred, the prejudice, unovercomable right now?
There was an opportunity to bring all sides together, immediately after Saddam was removed from power. After that, however, years of violence followed and continue to follow. The opportunity, so it seems, has been waisted.
At least, that’s my view now.
To Senator McCain et alia I’d say, prove me wrong.
Meanwhile, Joe wrote a long, good post about Iraq earlier today. Truly a great read.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.