President Bush will unveil his new Iraq strategy tonight and in a departure from the past four years, it’s likely to spark a vigorous debate in Congress. At least we hope so. The advance billing says that Bush plans to increase U.S. force levels, dubbed a “surge” as if to guarantee their deployment won’t last forever.
It’s a risky approach, both politically and militarily, and the president may find that the public is reluctant to grant him the benefit of the doubt. When voters delivered their anti-war thumpin’ to Republicans in November, they probably didn’t have a troop increase in mind.
To the contrary, a drumbeat of publicity accompanied the post-election recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel of elders who urged Bush to draw down force levels, not increase them.
The prospect of a troop increase has met significant resistance from military experts who fear U.S. forces worldwide are already stretched too thin by the Iraq deployment. As Lawrence Korb, an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, and Brian Katulis wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer, “In the last six months, the United States has surged twice in Baghdad – and yet the violence and death of Americans and Iraqis has increased dramatically. An additional surge would only create more targets, put more American lives at risk, increase Iraqi dependence on the United States, and further undermine the precarious readiness of our ground forces.”
We’re anxious to hear what the president has to say tonight but offer one piece of advice beforehand. The euphemism “surge” should go on the pile of discarded rhetoric (alongside “shock and awe,” “Mission Accomplished” and “Bring it on”). It’s time to shoot straight with the American people.
The president reportedly will call for at least 20,000 more troops to join the 132,000 already in Iraq. While “surge” is intended to imply a temporary increase, there’s no sign so far that U.S. forces could start withdrawing from Iraq in significant numbers any time soon.
The incoming U.S. operational commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, said Sunday that even with reinforcements, it may be another “two or three years” before American and Iraqi forces will turn the tide against insurgents. There is considerable doubt whether the American people believe that’s possible or will be willing to sacrifice many more American lives in the endeavor.
The new House Speaker, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, suggested over the weekend that Congress may consider using funding authority to restrain any troop buildup. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday: “I think we’ve got to tell the president what he’s doing is wrong. We’ve got to start bringing our folks home.” A key concern is that the conflict in Iraq is deteriorating into a civil war – with U.S. troops and Iraqi citizens both caught in a deadly crossfire. In addition, Congress will be looking for specific security guideposts that the Iraqi government must meet to satisfy U.S. goals.
Tuesday, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said he’ll introduce a bill that would cap the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at their current level barring specific approval from Congress. The Senate may begin debate as early as next week on such a resolution.
Bush’s buildup will have the support of Republican leaders even if other GOP lawmakers are restive. Senate GOP Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Bush made clear in a recent GOP briefing that the “rules for engagement” for U.S. troops will change and that there will be scheduled benchmarks for Iraqi leaders to meet as they take more responsibility for their country’s security. So far, though, Bush has resisted tying such benchmarks to U.S. military commitments.
If Bush is to escalate U.S. involvement in Iraq, he must persuade Congress and the public that the move can reverse the setbacks that have discredited his past policy. It’s not sensible to think this war can be escalated in the face of public opposition.
