The mantra currently being knocked around that we need more troops in Iraq to control the situation strikes me as a bit silly. I'm not saying that we don't in fact actually need more troops, it's just a stretch for me to accept that the politicians, pundits, and wonks over here are so clearly able to diagnosis the problem and the solution to it, while the military commanders on the ground in Iraq apparently can't. If US commanders in Iraq believe they require more troops to complete the mission then we have a problem that needs to be solved. Until then let's not get our undies all knotted up over it.
I still don't think I've read or heard one clear explanation of exactly what these additional troops would do that our current forces can't. No matter how many troops we send we can't protect all the potential targets that the insurgents could hit. And I for one don't want US forces being used to pull guard duty anyway. If we're going to send more troops over there to stand around and guard fixed targets all we're doing is increasing the chances of US casualties. Instead of more US troops the best solution seems to be getting more Iraqi units up and running to help out, which would allow our current forces in Iraq to be able to do what they're best trained to do.
If it's not clear to me that we need more troops at this point, it is clear that we need more talks like Sunday night's speech. The President's talk about why we were in Iraq and how it was connected to the wider war on terror was long overdue. While I support most of the administration's actions since 9/11, I believe one of their striking failures has been an inability to communicate their larger goals and objectives in the war, to continually reinforce them, and to ask the American people to support them.
I don't know if they fear possible negative political fallout or if they don't trust the citizenry to understand and embrace the challenges. In the run up to war with Iraq they probably (especially in hindsight) overplayed their hand by putting so much emphasis on the immediate threat posed by Saddam. Again, maybe this was necessary to garner the required political support but it has allowed the administration's opponents an opening to question the legitimacy of the military action.
Combined with what seems to have become a pattern of the administration of drifting off message between major actions or policy speeches it leads to a lose of initiative. Now, I don't think that the damage from these lapses is long lasting and the President's speech on Sunday is likely to be the first in a series of steps that shores up his support and quiets the critics. In fact it has been speculated (and I have in the past have had similar suspicions) that this is part of a clever strategy to lay low for periods of time, allow the opponents to air all their arguments, and then cut them off at the legs. And, if that indeed has been their strategy in the past, it has proven effective for the administration.
But the stakes are just too high to keep playing games. I think the administration has to sell the message about what they plan to do to win the war on terror and why it is important. I don't think it's a complex message and I believe that if presented properly it would be supported by anywhere from 60%-70% of American citizens. Bush has stated various parts of the message at different times but it needs to become a drumbeat:
We are at war. We were attacked on 9/11. There is no going back to pre 9/11. We need to prevent more attacks which could be many times worse than 9/11. We will not allow countries to support individuals or groups that threaten us with such attacks and will act to stop them from doing so. We need to protect not only our country today but our future. This means that we need to not only eliminate the immediate threats we need to eliminate future threats from developing. That is why we are in Iraq. We are going to try to change the political landscape of that region which has threatened our country and the world with instability for years. It will not be easy. It will not be quick. It will not be cheap in terms or treasure or lives. We may fail. But if we don't attempt to succeed we will not have peace or security nor will our children or our children's children.
That is a simple version of my understanding of the "Bush Doctrine" . The speech Sunday hit on some of these points and overall I was impressed by it. But I don't want to wait until the State of the Union to hear it all spelled out again. I want State of the War speeches, probably once every three months or so, that update us on progress in the war and remind us why we fight. Don't worry about us Mr. President. We can take it.
No comments:
Post a Comment