by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Dec. 21, 2006
All Rights Reserved.

ailing to learn from experience, President George W. Bush continues his relentless policy of inflicting harm on the U.S. military, hinting at escalating the Iraq war in 2007. As Bush toys with idea of a ‘07 troop surge, Iran continues its unstoppable march toward nuclear weapons, refusing to give up enriching uranium. Taking a yearly inventory, over 2,950 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives since combat began March 20, 2003, with more than 15,000 disabling injuries, not including untold more with the crippling mental illness called post-traumatic stress disorder. “2006 was a difficult year for our troops and the Iraqi people. We began the year with optimism,” but extremists fomented sectarian violence, Bush said, hoping the New Year would bring better results. Since declaring “mission accomplished” May 1, 2003, 2,817 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives in combat.

      Firing Rumsfeld Nov. 9 won't change the fortunes of new Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, whose views seem more closely aligned with Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, promising unmitigated disaster should the Pentagon follow the Iraq Study Group and faze out combat troops by '08. Karl Rove & Co.—not the Pentagon—has decided to “stay-the-course,” ramping up troop strength in '07. Rove is more concerned about Bush's legacy and presidential history than whether thousands of troops lose their lives in a suicide mission. Insurgents and terrorists track U.S. troop movements, leaving American forces sitting ducks. Roadside bombs and sniping has killed over 750 U.S. troops in calendar '06. Deploying more troops into the Baghdad promise to add to U.S. casualties, already growing by leaps-and-bounds. Military commanders can't stop the violence and death.

      U.S. top commanders in Iraq Gen. John P. Abizaid and Gen. George Casey have suddenly announced plans for early retirement, signaling, if nothing else, a rift with White House policy. Both Abizaid and Casey are on record opposing increases in U.S. forces, largely because they can't protect soldiers on the ground. Military commanders can't stop the ambushing, booby-trapping and sniping, accounting for the lion's share of U.S. casualties. Adding five more combat brigades, roughly 20,000 troops, won't stop the bloody guerrilla war waged against U.S. forces. Most military experts, including former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, oppose augmenting troops because conventional forces can't stop asymmetric warfare. There's also concerns about infiltration inside Iraq's new military, tipping off insurgents about troop movements and sabotaging U.S. forces.

      Bush's new plan offers to augment U.S. forces with the expected mission of going after radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Al-Sadr's enjoyed a close relationship with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, using his al-Mahdi militia as personal bodyguards. Al-Sadr also enjoys the praise of Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who stopped U.S. forces in 2004 from destroying his army at the battle of Fallouja. “There's got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops, you know, that strategy,” said Bush, implying that U.S. forces would go after al-Sadr, forcing Iraq's military to take sides. To get Iraq under control, the Pentagon now asks for an additional $99.7 billion, boosting the overall budget for Iraq and Afghanistan to $170 billion, placing the total at over $500 billion for the last four years. There's no guarantee that more money, more troops and more time will work.

      With December proving to be one of the bloodiest months of the war, Bush warned that more sacrifice lies ahead. “I'm not going to make predictions about what 2007 will look like in Iraq except that it's going to require difficult challenges and additional sacrifices because the enemy is merciless and violent,” said Bush, offering no reassurance that his new plan would have better results. Instead of rubber-stamping Bush's prescription or letting the Pentagon call the shots, the Congress should take a more active role in determining continued military necessity. If Iraq offers no threat to U.S. national security or the probability of success remains dismal, then there's no point in sacrificing more lives and tax dollars. Most military experts don't share Bush's “optimism” that more money, more troops and more time will stabilize Iraq and lead to “victory.”

      Before the country is led once again down the garden path, elected officials need to heed the message of Nov. 7. Republicans were swept out of office precisely because the president's policies failed to produce results. Recent polls indicate that voters have little faith that Bush's new plans are anything more than a suicide mission. “Victory is achievable,” insisted Bush. “It hadn't happened nearly as quickly as I hoped it would have . . .” said the president, ignoring voters' message of Nov. 7. Instead of worrying about his legacy and presidential history, Bush should place saving U.S. military lives as his highest priority. Continuing to fight based on farfetched theories about future terrorists attacking the homeland lack substance and provide a feeble excuse for continuing the war. If Bush doesn't come to his senses, Congress must do its job and pull the plug on funding.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.