My latest article talks briefly about my speech in one of my classes at Georgetown University on the "Surge of Troops in Iraq." While everyone does not share my position, I am compelled to lay down my argument for the sake of political discussion and literary style. Although it is not safe to say that Virginians want a new war strategy in Iraq but I am inclined to believe that even Republicans in Virginia themselves are getting uneasy with this multi-billion mess by the White House. I believe that it is neither “macaca” nor the “gender issue” that shaped and defined the recent election but the war in Iraq and mishandling of intelligence report by the Bush administration.
As President Bush insists for additional
troops in Iraq to quell the sectarian violence in Baghdad, I almost freak out
in my room while listening to his State of the Union Address. While the
American public is demanding a “new course” in Iraq, this administration holds
on to the idea of “staying the course.” The message of the November 2006
election is “clear and distinct”, i.e., the American people do not want a
“rubber stamp” Congress. They want a Democratic House and Senate who can say to
the President “enough is enough”. The message resonates not only
within the “walls of downtown Washington” but goes from coast to coast,
East to West and North to South.
The academic community and the philosophers
of the great American universities find no logical and ethical justification
for this war. The American Philosophical Association recently concluded its
annual conference (held in Wardman Park Marriott in Washington, D.C. last
December 27 - 30, 2006) with a resolution reiterating its opposition to the war
in Iraq.
President Bush defies both public opinion
and scholars. He thinks that increasing the troops in Iraq is a better strategy
to attain his idealistic goal. With less than two years before he retires “en
eternam”, I could not think of ways how to save his presidency and the legacy
he will leave in the pages of American history.
My research concludes that the “Surge of
Troops in Iraq” is not a good war strategy and is never an answer to the
growing sectarian violence in Baghdad. The Iraq war is not only costing
hundred of billions of dollar but had claimed more than three thousand lives of
our military. Another increase of troops does not guarantee a permanent
stability within the area. We do not need more troops in the streets of
Baghdad but a new strategy that will maximize and utilize the existing military
personnel already in the war zone. A radical change of direction in the way
this war is conducted is necessary in winning the hearts of the Muslim world.
We cannot continue with Bush’s doctrine of aggressiveness because it is
creating more resentment and hatred among the Arabs. The key to success
is succinctly spelled out in the Baker-Hamilton Commission, i.e., diplomacy.
The “Surge of Troops” is not necessary because: First, the Iraqis
will never take responsibility for their own security for as long as they see of the growing number of American
troops in Iraq streets (an opinion shared by the retired generals of the U.S.
military). An active involvement of the Iraqi people plays a significant
role in a more stable and peaceful Iraq. They have to be directly
involved in the administration of their own government so that the war is not
seen as an invasion of their oil but liberation from tyranny and slavery (if
they were indeed slaves to the cruelty of Saddam). Second, the
“Surge of Troops” (which is openly acknowledged by both the chiefs of the
Marines and Army) will further stretched out the military which means inability
to render their military services effectively in the event they are
needed again soon (I hope we are not going to war with Iran soon enough?).
Third, the “Surge” will only create a temporary “vacuum of peace” in
Baghdad because the Sunni insurgents and Shiites militia will always be around
and “hibernate their broken bones”. These people will be more than
patient enough to wait and wait until the American forces are out of Baghdad
streets. They will strike against each other when there is an
opportunity. This is a country with a long history of ethnic and tribal
division. History will tell us that democracy (much more the American style) is
never possible in the Arab world. Iraq needs a strong leader who can unite
together the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. If the country cannot produce one for
its people, neither America nor the United Nation can provide one.
Fourth, the Congressional Budget Office reported that Bush’s plan to
deploy more than 20,000 combat troops would require additional support
personnel of 15,000 or possibly 28,000 which means that the deployment will
bring a total of 48,000 people. The estimated cost for the first four
months is between 9 billion dollars to 13 billion and can even reach 27 billion
for the first year of operation. Congress should do something about the
skyrocketing expenses of Iraq war and I hope that the Democrats would take a
more radical approach rather than a non-binding resolution.
The “Surge of Troops” is not necessary
and is a waste of taxpayers’ money. President Bush should listen to the wisdom
of the Baker Commission if he wants to save his legacy. Two of them are
immediate and should be adopted now rather than latter. First, shift U.S.
troops from active combat role to advising Iraqi forces and second, urge more
diplomatic initiatives to secure Iraq and the region involving Iran and Syria.
What the Bush administration needs is not a strong military but three
things: first, humility; second, humility; and third, humility (adopting the
words of St. Augustine).
The Mail RSS Feed.
