BCT Editorial – 1/10/07

This page was last updated on January 11, 2007.

Bush’s troop surge: the latest in a string of questionable tactics; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 10, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Congress and the American people should support President Bush’s effort to pacify Baghdad by increasing troop strength there.”

[RWC] No, the Times has not “gotten religion.” Read on.

“We advocate that despite strong reservations about the chances of this tactic succeeding.

“Why support the increase? Because the so-called troop surge is what the president says is needed to succeed. As commander-in-chief, Bush must have the freedom to deploy U.S. military forces as he and his advisers see fit.

“But Bush also must be held accountable for the consequences of his actions. Too many soldiers and Marines are putting their lives on the line for Bush not to be responsible for what happens to them and their families.”

[RWC] When has President Bush ducked responsibility for his actions?

“There is good reason for concern.

“The troop surge has the potential to become an open-ended commitment to a tactic that has little chance of success. After four years of trying to pacify Iraq, the Bush administration still believes it can use conventional forces to combat an insurgency.

“In using conventional forces, the president and his advisers fail to understand that pacifying Baghdad is not the same as defeating the insurgency. U.S. forces may very well be able to control the city for awhile. However, all the insurgents have to do is blend in with the rest of the population and wait them out.

“Conventional forces did have a role to play in pacifying Iraq. However, that role should have come in the days and weeks immediately following the rout of Saddam Hussein’s military.”

[RWC] The editorial doesn’t tell us how that would have happened. Didn’t the previous paragraph say “all the insurgents have to do is blend in with the rest of the population?” If that’s true now – and it is, why wouldn’t it have been true “in the days and weeks immediately following the rout of Saddam Hussein’s military?”

“They never got that chance because the Bush administration, especially former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, failed to commit enough troops to pacify occupied Iraq, thereby nipping the insurgency in the bud.

“We hope that Bush is right this time. We want to see a stable Iraq. We don’t want to see any more American soldiers and Marines killed, wounded or maimed.”

[RWC] Given the editorials we’ve read for the past few years, forgive me if I’m skeptical of the sentiment expressed in this paragraph.

“We cannot, though, blind ourselves to long odds of success. Bush’s call for more 20,000 more troops in Iraq is 200,000 too few and four years too late. We are reaping the whirlwind that Bush’s failed tactics sowed four years ago.”

[RWC] As I’ve written before, I’ll never accuse the Times of originality. Since August 2004, this is at least the fifth time a Times editorial has used the “reap the whirlwind” statement in this context.