President Bush's recent decision to "augment" the number of U.S. Troops in Iraq by another 21,500 has the net result of making a clear and unequivocal statement that the U.S. has now decided to take sides in what is rapidly turning into a protracted civil war. The effort is being undertaken in an effort to prop up and attempt to save the fledgling government of Prime Minister Al-Maliki. Bush has stubbornly and unilaterally decided to move forward with his escalation of U.S. troop involvement in the war despite overwhelming opposition to the war by the masses of American people as proven by the results of the mid-term election -- in effect a referendum against the war -- that booted Republicans out of power in Congress. He has decided to go ahead despite the advice of the Baker/Hamilton Commission and that of most of his former and current generals, as well as former secretaries of State. The few individuals left that continue to advise him who believe in the efficacy of this doomed for failure policy are Vice President Dick Cheney and Senators McCain and Libermann.
Congressional Democrats and an increasing number of Republicans moved swiftly to sponsor a number of resolutions that deplore Bush's escalation of the war and threaten to cut off funding for it in the coming appropriations processes. Immediately after President Bush's speech last week, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi accused the President of rushing to move forward with the deployment of the additional troops to "get them in harm's way" as soon as possible to make it politically impractical for the Democrats and their supporters to vote down the additional billions of dollars needed to pay for the hike in the number of troops. Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska has been the most strident Republican to voice his opposition to the escalation of the war cosponsoring one of the bipartisan resolutions making its way through Congress. He grilled Secretary of State Condolezza Rice at a Senate Hearing last week challenging her use of the word "augmentation" as a euphemism for what amounted to nothing more than an escalation of the war. The Republican and right wing media response to the resolutions was to deplore them, reduce them as more examples of "micro-managing" the war, and "cut and run." Senator Edward Kennedy responded emphasizing that we are not being loyal to our troops by putting them in the midst of a civil war. Kennedy reminded that the war was supposed to be authorized to fight Al Qaeda who we have determined were not present in Iraq; the war was rationalized based on weapons of mass destruction that were not present in Iraq; and to stop Saddam Hussein who has now been deposed and killed. Kennedy said that there have already been four "surges" which have all been unsuccessful -- one in Najaff, Falujah and two in Baghad against the Madhi army. He further added that the American people and the Congress never gave authority or approval for the President to put American troops in the middle of a civil war. Given that, both Senators Kennedy and Hagel have called for resolutions to begin, for the first time, a comprehensive debate and discussion that calls for the administration to make the case for how this escalation will be successful when the others were not; what will be the time frame and measures for success. Senator Hagel, a military man who was on active duty in Vietnam in 1968, cautioned that the nation made this same mistake when that war was escalated without debate. They plan to force the Bush administration to rationalize and defend their positions on the escalation as part of the appropriations process for approving the upcoming additional $100 billion in funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; and for the 2008 fiscal budget.
President Bush, despite advice to the contrary from his National Security Adviser, has truly put himself and our nation out on a limb with his calculation that it will be more prudent to put stock in the Al-Maliki regime. Prime Minister Al-Maliki, a Shiite, owes his rise to power directly to Shiite strong man Muktadr al-Sadr who has backed him politically with his representatives in Parliament and with the strength of his Madhi Army. Given that, it is unrealistic and politically naive to think that Al-Maliki will respond to Bush's ultimatum that Al-Maliki direct the Iraqi Army to take on and disarm the Madhi Army. The Sunnis, humiliated by the recent botched execution of Saddam and his henchmen, have now become further alienated from the Al-Maliki government and its U.S. backers. The "Coalition of the Willing" has dwindled so much so that this term is no longer used in any of Bush's recent speeches about the war. The President has continued to redefine and downgrade what constitutes victory going from "Mission Accomplished" in that ridiculous scene on the deck of the Aircraft Carrier to some vague and unclear notions of "success" where we are "not winning and not losing" to his most recent characterization in his interview last week with Jim Lehrer where he defined victory as "avoiding catastrophic failure." His "State of the Union" speech on Tuesday focuses intentionally on domestic issues as a way to avoid any undesirable discussion of the war. Taking sides in a civil war is a proposition that is doomed for failure. |
