“Surge” + Execution = Impeachment

In a seeming effort by Dubya and the neocons to repeat every single mistake made during the Vietnam War, we now have the so-called “surge” option on the table concerning Iraq, with diarist Kagro X calling this for what it truly is (replaying the bombing of Cambodia which, according to Nixon and Kissinger, was NOT an escalation of the war…oh, please).

And by the way, don’t be fooled by the following Inquirer editorial – I’ll do my best to explain why.

Christmas didn't do it. Neither did the overdue changing of the guard at the Pentagon. Nothing happening in the United States has eclipsed news of the deteriorating situation in Iraq and the implications of that failed operation.

When you state that something has “failed,” doesn’t it mean now that you should automatically end it? Is the Inquirer now saying that we should withdraw? Dear reader, if you can figure out the answer after reading this claptrap, please let me know (and though it is a blessed season, why would Christmas matter concerning Iraq?).

The most recent stories from Iraq are especially sad. Bombings killed dozens of Iraqis yesterday, putting the civilian death toll above 51,800, according to the Iraq Body Count project.

“Sad”?

The death of a pet goldfish is “sad.” When a bicycle is left out in the rain and the baseball cards on the spokes get all wet so they can’t help the tires make that whirring sound any more when you ride down an icy hill (which you’re not supposed to do anyway, of course), that’s “sad.” The fact that the NHL hockey team representing the city of Philadelphia may not win a game in the month of December is “sad.”

The Iraq war is far more than “sad.” It is a tragic, ruinous, catastrophic blunder.

U.S. troops also continue to die in combat. A poignant milestone was passed this week: The U.S. military toll in Iraq of at least 2,978 dead since the war's start in March 2003 is more than the total number killed in the Sept. 11 attacks.

What's a president to do?

Don’t you love it? Don’t you love the fact that Dubya is being allowed this detachment from his mistakes by our corporate media? I think the author of this editorial must have read the recent column by David Ignatius in the Washington Post attacked by SadlyNo via Atrios today.

Actually, Dubya gets a very slight scolding in a couple of sentences, but that’s it. Boy, it’s a good thing Dubya is a Repug here, because if he were a Dem, he would really be in trouble.

A growing chorus, joined recently by former Secretary of State Colin Powell, agrees that the fighting in Iraq has dangerously stressed the U.S. military.

Even President Bush has ceded that point. In an interview with the Washington Post, Bush said he was "inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops, the Army, the Marines."

That's a big admission from a president who has trouble seeing his mistakes, let alone acknowledging the need to fix them. The self-proclaimed "Decider" now needs to deal with the short- and long-term consequences of exhausted armed services.

In the short term, Bush and new Defense Secretary Robert Gates should reject proposals for a temporary "surge" in the number of soldiers patrolling Baghdad.

Rejecting the “surge” is good. However, I don’t know where the Inquirer thinks these additional troops are going to come from without a draft, and if that is their totally wrongheaded solution to this, they should have the guts to stand up and say so.

The administration and its ideological supporters are kidding themselves if they think 20,000 more soldiers will tame the sectarian violence long enough for the weak Iraqi government to gain strength and credibility.

And you guys are kidding yourselves if you don’t follow up on what I just pointed out.

Besides, a quick surge simply puts more soldiers in harm's way without reevaluating what U.S. goals should be pursued in Iraq and which tactics will take us there.

That’s actually another good point (amazing).

In the long term, Bush and Gates can rebuild American armed forces by adding as many as 70,000 permanent, active-duty military personnel to the Army and Marines worldwide. The United States will need fresh troops should war break out on a different front.

As I and others have already pointed out, though, the last thing Bushco needs is more troops that they can abuse to fight their illegal wars.

The expansion will be expensive - $1.2 billion per year for every 10,000 soldiers. It will be a lengthy and challenging project, not one that can respond to the immediate crisis in Iraq. Still, Bush has made the expense a national necessity.

And are you going to hold Dubya's "feet to the fire" over the fact that, yet again, he has no idea of how he would pay for this except to “put it on the card,” as Bill Maher among others has noted?

The quality of U.S. soldiers is not in question. Our men and women in uniform are as brave, determined and skilled as ever. Iraq has made them all the more so.

So I guess that was a "pretend" benefit of this horror as far as you're concerned?

The damage has come from the administration's disdain for nation-building and its attendant need to send enough troops to keep the peace.

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld championed a sleek military that relies on technology more than boots on the ground. That approach works well in some situations. It guided the United States to quick, initial victories in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But consolidating that early success required far more soldiers than Bush dispatched to either country.

It also required political tact and diplomacy, not just after the war but prior to it as well.

It required many, many more troops than the United States has available if the president really sought to transform those countries from terrorist havens and despot-cracies to friendly democracies.

Apparently it is necessary to repeat yet again the fact the Iraq didn’t become a “terrorist haven” until after we invaded, overthrew Saddam Hussein and subsequently lost the peace after winning the war.

Afghanistan and Iraq provide other lessons for how wars might have to be conducted in this new era of global terrorism.

Rumsfeld was right that high-tech weaponry gives the United States an edge on the battlefield. But so does having adequate troops to flush out insurgents, civil-affairs officers to help rebuild national governments and physical infrastructure, and peacekeepers to maintain order while political processes take place.

Is it me, or does our corporate media seem “a day late and a dollar short” on this? Shouldn’t they face accountability also because they never questioned “the decider” and his bunch using the language in the prior paragraph until now? Maybe they should have done so before more of our people were killed and maimed, to say nothing of innocent Iraqis, don’t you think?

Gates is known as a foreign-affairs realist. That's a welcome change from the foreign-affairs rhapsodists who have dominated this White House. Realism now needs to guide what happens next for our armed forces.

Oh, but remember boys and girls – according to Dick Polman and others, it’s the Dems who are “weak on national security,” all the time and never the Repugs (everyone who believes that, clap your hands and then sprinkle yourselves with pixie dust).

As I read all of this, I couldn’t help but recall this great post from Prof. Marcus in which he cites Steve Clemons of The Washington Note and his concerns about the pending execution of Saddam Hussein.

Given all of this, how can impeachment NOT be on the table when Dubya and the rest of his crooked bunch continue to disregard the clearly-expressed will of the vast majority of the people of this country?