BCT Editorial – 1/25/07

This page was last updated on January 27, 2007.

Americans and Congress must support Bush’s troop increase in Iraq - for now; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 25, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, President Bush made a strong pitch for Congress and the American people to support his plan to send more American troops to tranquilize Iraq.

“It was, is and will be a hard sell.

“Democrats, who now control both the House and Senate, overwhelmingly reject Bush’s plan to augment U.S. forces in Iraq (mainly Baghdad) with more than 21,000 troops.

“To make matters worse for the president, enough Republicans in the House and Senate are questioning the increase that it is going to be extremely difficult for administration officials to frame the debate in purely partisan terms.

“It’s not just members of Congress who oppose the increase. The American people overwhelmingly reject it as well.

“Despite that, Bush says he will push on.

“We support him in that effort and believe that Congress should suspend efforts to pass nonbinding resolutions regarding Iraq until after this effort has run its course.

“We do so knowing full well that the effort to pacify Iraq most likely will fail and that many more American personnel will be killed, maimed and wounded in a futile effort to save Bush’s failed policies.

“As we argued in a Jan. 10 editorial supporting the increase, we believe that as commander-in-chief, Bush must have the freedom to deploy U.S. military forces as he and his advisers see fit.”

[RWC] Read the referenced editorial closely and you’ll find it never said the Times supported the increase. The closest the editorial got to expressing support was to say “Congress and the American people should support President Bush’s effort.” Saying someone else should support something is not the same as saying you support the effort.

“However, the troop surge has the potential to become an open-ended commitment to a tactic that has little chance of success because the White House still believes it can use conventional tactics to combat an insurgency.

“For instance, the administration plans to commit five brigades to help gain control of Baghdad. The New York Times reported that at roughly 3,500 each, the five brigades would bring U.S. security forces in Iraq’s capital to about 33,000.

“When it come to countering insurgents, a force that size is woefully inadequate - and that’s based on U.S. military estimates. The paper reported that according to the force ratios outlined in the military’s new field manual for counterinsurgency, a 120,000-strong force would have to be in place to secure Baghdad.

“Even when Iraqi military and police personnel are added in, counterinsurgency forces in the capital would come to about 86,000, a little more than 70 percent of the ideal. (And we know how reliable the Iraqi military and police are.)

“Despite these longs odds, we support that increase in troops because it is the last hope of salvaging the mess that Bush and his followers have made in Iraq. We hope Bush is right this time. We pray that American casualties are kept to a minimum. We want to see a stable and secure Iraq.”

[RWC] Yeah, sure. Fortunately, I wasn’t born yesterday.

“Failure, though, is far more likely than success. For that reason, this security push cannot become an open-ended commitment to support another failed Bush administration tactic. That’s when the House and Senate would be right to step in.”

[RWC] In case you missed it, the Times is playing both sides. The editorial says the Times supports the troop increase while at the same time asserting “the effort to pacify Iraq most likely will fail and that many more American personnel will be killed, maimed and wounded in a futile effort.” Regardless of how things transpire, this editorial sets up the Times to claim it was right. Should our efforts succeed, the Times will say it supported the effort. Should our efforts fail, the Times will say, “I told you so.”

What a gutless position! Worse than gutless, it displays an amazing lack of principles and a willingness to sacrifice American lives to make a political point. If the Times truly believes “the effort to pacify Iraq most likely will fail and that many more American personnel will be killed, maimed and wounded in a futile effort,” it has a moral obligation to fight against the troop increase. Instead, this editorial treats the situation as may a parent with a kid who wants to paint his room black. “Go ahead, son, it’s OK with me if you paint your room black, but you’ll wish you hadn’t.”

This is no better than those gutless Senators voting for a nonbinding resolution against the troop increase. Senators who oppose the increase should have the courage of their convictions to vote to deny the funding allowing the troop increase.

What I want to know is, why don’t they vote on a resolution calling for victory?