By now its become pretty clear that US President George Bush is sending 21,500 more of his troops to Iraq, whether the congress (or the American people) like it or not. For now, Australia has not committed more forces, though it hasn’t yet been asked to. Since Bush’s announcement last week, much of the media attention has been on the number of soldiers (is it too few, or too many?), semantics (what’s the difference between a surge and an escalation?) – and of course, will this increase make a difference to the situation on the ground?
Most of the Democrats are arguing that an increase in troops means only an increase in casualties – and it’s hard to argue with them. Some Republicans though like John McCain feel that 50,000 troops is more like the number we need to bring about real change. Secretary Rice told congress that the increase was most definitely not an escalation in the war, while Stephen Colbert (of the Colbert Report) insisted that escalating was what old people do at shopping malls (he’s a funny guy). Despite all of this though, I think there are some real differences this time in Bush’s Iraq policy, here are three:
1) Ding Dong the Witch is dead….
Defence Secretary Rumsfeld has been replaced by Defence Secretary Gates, and that makes a real difference in how the war is prosecuted and in the information reaching back to the President. Gates, at least so far seems to be everything his predecessor wasn’t: calm, intellectual, thoughtful, articulate… the type of man that breeds confidence inside the Pentagon and in public.
2) Clear. Hold. Build.
The Bush Administrations new mantra in Iraq, cribbed from counter insurgency manuals written from the lessons learned in Vietnam. The current plan of patrolling unsecured neighbourhoods and fighting gunmen as they crop up is being replaced by the more holistic approach of clear, hold and build. It makes sense that securing suburbs and emphasising reconstruction (and therefore jobs) is the way to quell civil unrest. The US is employing this strategy about 4 years late, but hopefully this renewed interest in Iraqi infrastructure and economy is better late than never.
3) The Iraqi’s are in it.
Sensibly, (but surprisingly for Bush) this new plan was apparently worked out in consultation with the Iraqi government. Much of its success depends on the increased effectiveness of the Iraqi troops trained by the US (some 300,000) and on these forces even handedly prosecuting both Sunni and Shia who break the law. Both of these will be bolstered by increased numbers of US troops embedded with Iraqis. Members of the Iraqi government are also claiming that militias and death squads (including those of Shiite leader Moqtada Al-Sadr) will be disarmed and leaders instead invited to peacefully join in shaping the future of Iraq.
This is no slam dunk. Chances are that sectarian killings will continue and Iraq will slide further away from peace and closer to chaos. In fact, given the current political climate in the US, not only does this plan need to work, but quickly – an outcome with even higher odds. Still, this Administration dares to hope that Bush’s change of philosophy on some keys issues will bring about a resolution of this war, our troops can return home – and those that have died will not have done so in vain.
Most of the Democrats are arguing that an increase in troops means only an increase in casualties – and it’s hard to argue with them. Some Republicans though like John McCain feel that 50,000 troops is more like the number we need to bring about real change. Secretary Rice told congress that the increase was most definitely not an escalation in the war, while Stephen Colbert (of the Colbert Report) insisted that escalating was what old people do at shopping malls (he’s a funny guy). Despite all of this though, I think there are some real differences this time in Bush’s Iraq policy, here are three:
1) Ding Dong the Witch is dead….
Defence Secretary Rumsfeld has been replaced by Defence Secretary Gates, and that makes a real difference in how the war is prosecuted and in the information reaching back to the President. Gates, at least so far seems to be everything his predecessor wasn’t: calm, intellectual, thoughtful, articulate… the type of man that breeds confidence inside the Pentagon and in public.
2) Clear. Hold. Build.
The Bush Administrations new mantra in Iraq, cribbed from counter insurgency manuals written from the lessons learned in Vietnam. The current plan of patrolling unsecured neighbourhoods and fighting gunmen as they crop up is being replaced by the more holistic approach of clear, hold and build. It makes sense that securing suburbs and emphasising reconstruction (and therefore jobs) is the way to quell civil unrest. The US is employing this strategy about 4 years late, but hopefully this renewed interest in Iraqi infrastructure and economy is better late than never.
3) The Iraqi’s are in it.
Sensibly, (but surprisingly for Bush) this new plan was apparently worked out in consultation with the Iraqi government. Much of its success depends on the increased effectiveness of the Iraqi troops trained by the US (some 300,000) and on these forces even handedly prosecuting both Sunni and Shia who break the law. Both of these will be bolstered by increased numbers of US troops embedded with Iraqis. Members of the Iraqi government are also claiming that militias and death squads (including those of Shiite leader Moqtada Al-Sadr) will be disarmed and leaders instead invited to peacefully join in shaping the future of Iraq.
This is no slam dunk. Chances are that sectarian killings will continue and Iraq will slide further away from peace and closer to chaos. In fact, given the current political climate in the US, not only does this plan need to work, but quickly – an outcome with even higher odds. Still, this Administration dares to hope that Bush’s change of philosophy on some keys issues will bring about a resolution of this war, our troops can return home – and those that have died will not have done so in vain.
No comments:
Post a Comment