2008 Woodie Awards
U.S. must surge ahead in the war against terror in the Mid-East
As the war wages on, we must not cower
Matthew Duncan '07
Issue date: 2/21/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
The war in Iraq has now lasted over three and a half years, and what began as a promising success looks headed for catastrophe. Because of major tactical errors in the earliest part of the conflict, stabilization has become markedly more difficult in Iraq. President Bush has introduced a new strategy, dubbed "the surge", that will send an additional 21,500 soldiers to Iraq in order to secure Baghdad and the al-Anbar province. Some have chosen to play politics with this issue and not give the President's latest proposal a chance. But we must support this surge and its goal of stabilizing Iraq for one simple reason: we broke it and now it is our responsibility to fix it.
The Pentagon and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) made two critical errors in the early stages of the operation that led to the current instability. The first error was that the Pentagon did not send in enough troops to secure and stabilize Iraq. The second error was the CPA's decision to disband the Iraqi army and remove members of the ruling Baath party from the government, in effect creating a power vacuum that is now filled by Sunni and Shiite militias. Additionally, no WMDs were found, over 3,100 American service members have died, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent, and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died with only a brewing sectarian-based civil war to show for it.
Those opposing the President's plan throw terms such as "force redeployment" and "exit strategy" around, but what they mean is "withdrawal". Half of Congress has declared its intention to run for President (with the other half still considering) on the platform of ending the conflict and bringing our troops home because it is the "right thing"; it is also the popular thing do. As a result we get these ridiculous non-binding resolutions in Congress opposing the President's plan. They are ridiculous because they are non-binding and they are wrong-headed. Non-binding resolutions do not have the force of law and are usually reserved for congratulating Miss America. If the anti-war candidates were serious about ending the conflict then they would exercise their Constitutional authority and cut funding for the conflict. But they will not do this because "cutting funding for the conflict" is "not supporting the troops" and "not supporting the troops" is "unpopular"; therefore, cutting funding for the conflict is unpopular. So much for doing the "right thing".
The Pentagon and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) made two critical errors in the early stages of the operation that led to the current instability. The first error was that the Pentagon did not send in enough troops to secure and stabilize Iraq. The second error was the CPA's decision to disband the Iraqi army and remove members of the ruling Baath party from the government, in effect creating a power vacuum that is now filled by Sunni and Shiite militias. Additionally, no WMDs were found, over 3,100 American service members have died, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent, and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died with only a brewing sectarian-based civil war to show for it.
Those opposing the President's plan throw terms such as "force redeployment" and "exit strategy" around, but what they mean is "withdrawal". Half of Congress has declared its intention to run for President (with the other half still considering) on the platform of ending the conflict and bringing our troops home because it is the "right thing"; it is also the popular thing do. As a result we get these ridiculous non-binding resolutions in Congress opposing the President's plan. They are ridiculous because they are non-binding and they are wrong-headed. Non-binding resolutions do not have the force of law and are usually reserved for congratulating Miss America. If the anti-war candidates were serious about ending the conflict then they would exercise their Constitutional authority and cut funding for the conflict. But they will not do this because "cutting funding for the conflict" is "not supporting the troops" and "not supporting the troops" is "unpopular"; therefore, cutting funding for the conflict is unpopular. So much for doing the "right thing".
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Robert Schuster
posted 2/21/07 @ 11:58 AM EST
Matthew:
You wrote, ?Because of major tactical errors in the earliest part of the conflict, stabilization has become markedly more difficult in Iraq. (Continued…)
Post a Comment