WHY THROWING MORE TROOPS AT IRAQ ISN'T THE ANSWER

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), set to become the Senate Armed Service Committee's ranking minority member, made it clear that he vehemently opposes a time table for withdrawing troops and instead favors a substantial increase in U.S. ground forces in Iraq.
--"U.S. Commander in Iraq to Face Democrats Eager for Troop Cuts," Ann Tyson, Washington Post, November 15, 2006


McCain proposed "sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq, which means "expanding the Army and Marine Corps by as much as 100,000 people."
--NBC's "Meet the Press," with Tim Russert, November 12, 2006.


General Abizaid did not rule out a larger troop increase, but he said the American military was stretched too thin to make such a step possible over the long term. And he said such an expansion might dissuade the Iraqis from making more of an effort to provide for their own security.

"We can put in 20,000 more Americans tomorrow and achieve a temporary effect," he said. "But when you look at the overall American force pool that's available out there, the ability to sustain that commitment is simply not something that we have right now with the size of the Army and Marine Corps…"

"General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately aft4er major combat operations," General Abizaid said. "I think you can look back and say that more American troops would have been advisable in the early stages of May, June, July."
--"General Warns of Risks in Iraq if G.I.'s Are Cut," Michael Gordon and Mark Mazzetti, "New York Times," November 16, 2006.

"…to imagine more troops, more people and overwhelming force, can still salvage an Iraqi effort, is also wrong. Throwing more resources at Iraq ignores that the country is beyond the tipping point and outside of our ability to influence how it will go (other than to get out and get out of the way.)
--"The Gates Agenda and the Public Demand," William Arkin on National and Homeland Security blog for the Washington Post, November 16, 2006.


It took a general to finally tell the truth to Senator John McCain about his big idea to send MORE troops to Iraq to end this thing than less.

God bless John McCain. He has served our nation with dignity and courage, and he--unlike the vast overwhelming majority of senators and congresspeople and administration warmongers--has a son in the Marine Corps who is soon to deploy to the Anbar province.

I know he has agonized over this question and I know that he has insisted on more troops from the very beginning of this war. I give him credit for that. And if--as General Abizaid pointed out--if General Shinseki had been listened to in 2003 rather than FIRED for speaking truth, we might not even be having this discussion.

But it's too late now. The truth is, we don't HAVE all those troops Sen. McCain wants, and we won't have them unless there is a national draft.

I've been watching news anchors and commentators and media pundits tossing McCain all kinds of softballs on this issue, and I've been watching him continue to assert that more troops is the answer now in Iraq, and not a single one that I have seen has EVER asked him…WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO GET THEM?

Finally, when he had a chance to try out his theory in front of the cameras by putting the question to the general in charge of making such decisions, he was quickly shot down by the simple, raw, unpleasant and uncomfortable truth that the military has been stretched too thin by two wars bravely fought but badly managed.

There's one more little factoid that nobody is mentioning: If even Gen. Abizaid calls for 20,000 more troops, guess where they will have to come from?

BY EXTENDING THE TOURS OF THOSE ALREADY IN-COUNTRY.

Just so that is perfectly clear to everybody.

I've been mulling this over and feeling fretful and frustrated over this issue because nobody has really been ferreting out the truth or even ASKING people like McCain what he means.

But it took a brand-new column by Fareed Zakaria, the foreign-affairs columnist for Newsweek, to absolutely hit the bull's-eye on this topic. For those of you who don't know, Mr. Zakaria was fully in favor of the war in Iraq and supported the administration for the first couple of years, until things had deteriorated to the progressively alarming levels that we see now. He says:

This is not our chessboard. The Iraqi government has authority over all the political issues in the country…There is a desperate neoconservative plea for more troops to try one more time in Iraq. But a new military strategy, even with adequate forces, cannot work without political moves to reinforce it. The opposite is happening today. American military efforts are actually being undermined by Iraq's government. The stark truth is, we do not have an Iraqi partner willing to make the hard decisions. Wishing otherwise is, well, wishful thinking…

Time is not on America's side. Month by month, U.S. influence in Iraq is waning. Deals that we could have imposed on Iraq's rival factions in 2003 are now impossible…

…America's only real leverage is the threat of withdrawal. Many outsiders fail to grasp how much political power the United States has handed over in Iraq…Washington can warn the ruling coalition that unless certain conditions are met, U.S. troops will begin a substantial drawdown, quit providing basic security on the streets of Iraq and instead take on a narrower role, akin to the Special Forces mission in Afghanistan.

And one last thing: for such a threat to be meaningful, we must be prepared to carry it out.
"Don't Punt on the Troops Issue," Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria, November 20, 2006.


As I have stated many times, I really hate these extremist either-or arguments, like the only people we can trust to figure out what to do in Iraq is Ann Coulter and Michael Moore.

For Republicans to continually spread the mythology that all Democrats want only to cut-and-run, to pull out every last troop tomorrow and tuck our tails between our legs is not only A LIE but it does not help in meaningful discourse over what to do next in this impossible situation.

But it is the responsibility of the news media which disseminates facts--not entertainment--to analyze and dissect all the ideas that are on the table.

If partitioning the country won't work, let's have an honest dialogue about WHY.

And when a popular and experienced senator appears on just about every news outlet insisting that more troops will solve this thing, somebody somewhere needs to ask him the hard questions.

And when well-meaning and patriotic Americans everywhere talk about how terribly important it is for us to stay in Iraq IN FORCE, for as long as ten more years, which is something I've heard repeatedly…

Then they need to ask…Am I ready to send my OWN son or daughter or young husband or young wife or young mother or young father to the war in Iraq?

Do I embrace a NATIONAL DRAFT in order to provide the military with the extra troops such a plan would necessitate?

Am I ready to admit that the current policy of sending the same troops back and back and back again for repeated deployments--three in three or four years--IS NOT GOING TO WORK INDEFINITELY?

Am I ready to FACE THE TRUTH ABOUT THE BACK-DOOR DRAFT--those troops who are forced to remain in the armed forces after they have served their country honorably and bravely, by being refused retirement or being threatened into re-enlisting or stopped from returning home after a whole year in combat or yanked back in, as one Marine I know of--before he's even been out of the service for one month, and sent BACK TO IRAQ?

How about, if their unit is due to deploy to the war just as they are due to get out of the service, they are forced into ANOTHER UNIT which is DEPLOYING SOONER so that they STILL HAVE TO RETURN TO WAR?

This is happening, boys and girls, as I write.

For those of you so certain our staying indefinitely is the only answer, are you ready to admit THIS IS NOT FAIR, and to do something about it?


Are you willing to make the same sacrifice? Bear the same burden?

This president has been only too happy to use this war for political rabble-rousing, but strangely, has asked of no sacrifice from the American people at large for a war that has dragged on now, longer than World War II.

Did you know that only approximately ten percent of Americans currently serve in the armed forces?

That's ten percent fighting the same war, year after year, over and over.

Are you aware that, recently, the U.S. Army extended its enlistment age to 42, and started allowing in high-school drop-outs and those with criminal records because they can't make their enlistment goals?

Sen. McCain means well, and I give him credit for that. He is advocating what he thinks would serve the greatest purpose to protect his own boy and all of our men and women overseas. I am not arguing the fact--on the face of it--that more troops might work temporarily. (Although, we need only observe what happened in Yugoslavia 30 years after the Russian troops came in. As soon as they left, the country turned into a boiling cauldron of sectarian conflict and ethnic cleansing. So more troops can only work for as long as more troops stay.)

After all, WE SENT MORE TROOPS TO BAGHDAD. WE SHUT DOWN A NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PRIME MINISTER ASKED US TO LEAVE. WE DID. AFTERWARD, DOZENS MORE IRAQIS DIED.

Even more significantly, ONE GOVERNMENT MINISTRY INVADED ANOTHER MINISTRY WITH TROOPS AND CARRIED OUT EVERY MALE ON THE PREMISES AND DROVE THEM AWAY IN OFFICIAL VEHICLES, A MASSIVE KIDNAPPING IN BROAD DAYLIGHT BETWEEN GOVERNMENT FACTIONS.

Is that a civil war, mommy?

But what I'm saying, bottom line--and what Gen. Abizaid is saying, is that, it's too late to send hundreds of thousands more troops. We haven't got unlimited troops for an extended deployment and we haven't got the equipment.

There are hundreds of IED attacks on American troops every single day in Iraq, and every time a humvee or other vehicle hits an IED, it is either destroyed or in need of major repairs.

So let's stop thinking about HOW WE WOULD LIKE THINGS TO BE and start looking at THINGS THE WAY THEY REALLY ARE.

And let's stop pretending that all Democrats are Michael Moore and all Republicans are Ann Coulter and let's roll up our sleeves and come up with something workable to get our exhausted and overworked troops out of hell.

What happens to Iraq afterward is up to Iraq.