In the post titled escalation, I countered the rhetoric that the proposed troop surge is an escalation of the Iraq conflict. It may be an escalation. It may also be, as Bush seems to be claiming, an effort to solidfy gains that we had made during the war; so that we can transfer control to Iraqi forces without creating a power. The point of my post is that we do not know at this moment, which is a great frustration.
On listening to Conservative commentators on the troop surge. My gut instinct is telling me that the in-your-face style announcement made by Bush has the military beginning a good strategic move with a big political blunder. Things would be so much better if Bush had spent a week or so during the opening of the political season to build consensus for the troop surge.
Peace is an illusive goal. One of the primary keys to achieving peace is consensus. An announcement that lacks consensus runs the risk of making American troops the target. Yes, a troop surge could help solidify gains to help us ease into a draw down. If, however, the opposition escalates their activity in response to the surge, it will become the divisive escalation that Democrats fear. The timing of the announcement was so off, that our enemies have a better chance of turning a good strategy into a blunder.
2 comments:
Kevin Delaney. What a small friggin' world. You may not recall, but you once worked alongside a snot-nosed punk on the third floor of that big red-bricked building down off North Temple. I was that snot-nosed punk. Remember back in the days of our never-materializing stock options? Ah, the folly that was Campus Pipeline.
And now? We both run political blogs, yours slightly to the right, mine more than slightly to the left.
In any event, no matter what the goal of the "surge" is, it is an escalation of our involvement in Iraq. But semantics aside, could it be that the whole thing is leading us marching towards Iran? It seems if that were the case, we could agree that this is an "escalation" on every level and in every sense.
All that aside, I hope your well, Kevin. Nice blog.
-James
The Deseret Spectacle
I remember working in a red building, but can't remember a snot nosed punk. I was on a team with a grizzled DB Admin, a Mormon who called himself a Christian, an English Gentleman and pianist. I still have a few works from that pianist in my playlist. The songs are labeled Batrina Moville, Edgar and Mary's Waltz. That was all I was able to snag from MP3.com before it dotcommed itself. I have occasionally googled the pianist's name hoping to find more music.
BTW, your statement is correct. Bush's plan is an escalation of activity. The question is whether or not it is an escalation of war. If we are going to withdraw troops without creating a power vacuum, you have to start with an escalation of activity.
I am upset with people who automatically labeled it an "escalation of war."
There is a legitimate question of whether or not this escalation of activity will escalate the war. For that matter, there is cause to worry that Bush is intentionally trying to escalate the war.
The problem is that we do not know.
What needs to happen in analyzation of the proposal.
Escalating defensive activities sometimes stops hostilities.
Immediately labeling any escalation in activity as an escalation of war is simple propaganda. That is why I was upset with the people jumping up and down after the speech calling it an "escalation of war."
Kneejerk propagandist style reactions to issues are the type of things that drive us into a hole. My second post criticized Bush for making a proposal in such a way that guaranteed such a reaction.
The action/reaction aspects of Bush's speech has clouded our ability to find a path that defends the Iraqi democracy while reducing the hostilities.
The way that both sides of this debate are behaving is undermining the ability of our country to find a way out of the mess Bush created.
Post a Comment