2008 Woodie Awards
More troops doesn't mean a victory
Robert Smith
Issue date: 2/13/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
Beginning as early as January 3rd rumors began to flow from the Whitehouse that President Bush was planning to increase troop deployment to Iraq by as many as 21,500. On January 23rd this rumor became fact as the President announced in his State of Union address that he was increasing the number of troops in Iraq by 20,000 soldiers and Marines.
The president told the nation, "We're carrying out a new strategy in Iraq -- a plan that demands more from Iraq's elected government, and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission. Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.
In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we're deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq."
Ignore for the moment the political rhetoric regarding whether the President of the United States can indeed send additional troops into combat without Congressional approval and the political posturing that has become commonplace in Washington today, and consider the mission of the American troops in Iraq.
Regardless of the original mission and reasons for the invasion of Iraq (the destruction of Weapons of Mass Destruction that were never found), the current role of the United States in Iraq is a peacekeeping force and to provide aid for the Iraqi government until its own security force can step in and assume control. The removal of Saddam Hussein has created tremendous unrest as various factions attempt to assert control over the future of the country.
Without the presence of U.S. troops Iraq would be in the midst of a full-scale civil war. The American press has focused on the loss of American soldiers lives, having passed the 3,000 mark this month. What the press doesn't mention is the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the United States has arrived in Iraq. According to a survey by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, published in The Lancet medical journal on October 14th, 2006, as many as 650,000 Iraqis may have died since the arrival of American and coalition forces in March 2003.
An immediate and complete withdrawal of American troops would only worsen the violence in Iraq.
But the question remains; will a surge of 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines be a deciding factor in whether the current policies in Iraq are a success or failure? With a current deployment of 140,000 troops, and with the administration's plans to split these forces among different areas, it is unlikely. It won't hurt the current effort, and more troops always helps, but its impact is going to be negligible.
Only time, and the desire of the people of Iraq for a real and lasting peace will be the true measure of whether the presidents plan will work.
The president told the nation, "We're carrying out a new strategy in Iraq -- a plan that demands more from Iraq's elected government, and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission. Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.
In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we're deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq."
Ignore for the moment the political rhetoric regarding whether the President of the United States can indeed send additional troops into combat without Congressional approval and the political posturing that has become commonplace in Washington today, and consider the mission of the American troops in Iraq.
Regardless of the original mission and reasons for the invasion of Iraq (the destruction of Weapons of Mass Destruction that were never found), the current role of the United States in Iraq is a peacekeeping force and to provide aid for the Iraqi government until its own security force can step in and assume control. The removal of Saddam Hussein has created tremendous unrest as various factions attempt to assert control over the future of the country.
Without the presence of U.S. troops Iraq would be in the midst of a full-scale civil war. The American press has focused on the loss of American soldiers lives, having passed the 3,000 mark this month. What the press doesn't mention is the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the United States has arrived in Iraq. According to a survey by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, published in The Lancet medical journal on October 14th, 2006, as many as 650,000 Iraqis may have died since the arrival of American and coalition forces in March 2003.
An immediate and complete withdrawal of American troops would only worsen the violence in Iraq.
But the question remains; will a surge of 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines be a deciding factor in whether the current policies in Iraq are a success or failure? With a current deployment of 140,000 troops, and with the administration's plans to split these forces among different areas, it is unlikely. It won't hurt the current effort, and more troops always helps, but its impact is going to be negligible.
Only time, and the desire of the people of Iraq for a real and lasting peace will be the true measure of whether the presidents plan will work.
Be the first to comment on this story