To Surge or Not to Surge
Protesters respond to Lieberman and McCain’s calls for more troops.
By Keith White, University of Virginia
Friday January 5, 2007
Antiwar protesters greeted Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) Friday at a Washington, D.C. event unveiling their support for a surge in U.S. troop numbers in Iraq.
The protest outside the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) was organized by the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org, which labeled it a “Peaceful Picket to Say ‘No Iraq Escalation.’” Approximately 75–100 protesters rallied against calls by Lieberman and McCain—long-time Iraq War supporters—for more U.S. troops in Iraq.
 “I am not sure if this is going to achieve anything,” protester Matt Kawar, 27, said, noting “some of the people in there are pretty die-hard warmongers.” While unsure if the demonstration would change any minds, he continued, “I wouldn’t feel right about myself if I didn’t do something to try.”
Meanwhile, inside and upstairs from the protesters’ chants, AEI held its two-session event on the future of America’s Iraq mission. AEI senior fellow and military historian Frederick W. Kagan and retired Army General Jack Keane headlined the first panel, discussing the AEI report Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq. Written by Kagan, it calls for an 18-month troop surge in Baghdad, declaring, “[F]ailure in Iraq will require far greater sacrifices tomorrow in far more desperate circumstances.”
Kagan was confident that “forces exist to execute the plan,” while cautioning that success “isn’t going to happen quickly” and Americans should prepare “for a bloody year,” regardless of what course America takes.
Senators McCain and Lieberman, returning from a recent trip to Iraq, endorsed the report and urged the Bush administration to follow its recommendations.
Lieberman heralded the AEI report, saying it “will lead us to victory in Iraq and victory in the larger war on terrorism.”
McCain agreed, insisting the Bush administration not make any potential troop surge too brief. “The troops surge should be significant and sustained, if not don’t do it,” McCain said.
McCain and Lieberman both placed Iraq in the context of the United States’ greater war on extremist terrorism, regarding Iraq’s sectarian violence as the result of terrorist instigation. They also said any American phased withdrawal, such as that advocated by the Iraq Study Group, would hand a huge success to Islamic terrorists while also dealing a body blow to moderate Muslims in the region.
Critics of a troop surge in Iraq have raised doubts about its effectiveness and the ability of our military to deploy further troops to the region.
“What is their plan B?” McCain responded, adding the “only thing worse than an overstretched military [is] a defeated and broken one.”
Lieberman opposed any attempt by Congress to refuse funding a troop surge.“I think it’s time for the president to be president and for Congress to respect [his role]…as commander-in-chief,” he said.
Such sentiments, regardless of their warm reception by the audience, were strongly opposed by protesters 12 stories below.
Daniel Meltzer, 22, likened America’s role in Iraq to a car wreck. “It’s like we’ve hit the Iraqi people in our car, and we’re sitting on top of them and they are bleeding out,” he said. “They are not going to survive if we continue to leave our car on top of them. If we drive off of them, yeah, it’s going to hurt. However the damage has already been done. It’s all going to get worse.”
“Go to Iraq and see if it looks like they are succeeding now,” 16 year-old Emma Olsen suggested, pointing to widespread disillusionment with America’s mission in Iraq.
But Olsen also voiced a weakness of the anti-war movement, adding, “there should be a lot more youth involvement. … I haven’t seen that many young people here today.”
Meltzer saw student apathy as the result of poor political leadership. “The problem is not that students and youth are not against the war,” Meltzer contended, but “that they see fault with the Democratic Party … because they feel they have been sold out by the party one too many times.”
But Alexis LeFevre, 27, doubted the Bush administration would seek alternatives to a surge of U.S. troops. “Bush is delusional. He doesn’t care if he has zero percent approval,” she said, adding, “He’s going to do whatever he wants anyway.”
Regardless of their differences, the speakers at AEI and the protesters shared a profound worry over America’s future in Iraq. Protesters doubted any real ability to alter President Bush’s final decision on Iraq. On the other hand, the pro-surge speakers rested hopes for success in Iraq on prudent policies from a distrusted Bush administration and the support of a skeptical American public.
--------
Comments
|
!
All Bush cares about is his legacy—he doesn’t care at all about increased American deaths much less Iraqi deaths. He only wants to see the next president inherit the blame for the diaster he created.
— plotinus - Jan 6, 06:42 PM - #OK, Bush will unveil his new approach to the 4 year Iraq war on Wednesday. I guess we can call it Iraqization. You remember or have read about Vietnamization.
Rewind to the Vietnam era, when Richard Nixon coined Vietnamization as a way to convince Americans to support his vietnam policy. Nixon new that it was necessary to reduce American casualty rates and the number of combat troops in Vietnam. To this end, Nixon defined his policy as “Vietnamization” — the idea that South Vietnamese would gradually assume a greater combat role and ultimately eliminate the need for American ground forces. Because the US would not withdraw abrubtly, the policy of Vietnamization would require time. The domestic political objective was to convince the public that the Army of South Vietnam could eventually handle the war on their own.
Fast Foward today. As reported in major news outlets, including WaPo, Bush is widely expected to announce a boost in U.S. military forces in Iraq by as many as 20,000 troops, a jobs program to put Iraqis back to work and political benchmarks that the U.S. expects Iraqi leaders to meet in forming a national reconciliation government.Snow repeatedly declined at his daily news briefing to respond to questions about specifics in Bush’s speech, which, he said, is still being written.
Let’s rewind back to the Vietnam era on a November 3rd evening when, President Nixon addressed a national television audience from the White House. This speech, whose date was announced just two days before the first moratorium, was designed to buy time in Vietnam and to reach out to dissident Democrats along with Nixon’s core constituency. In the speech, the president traced the history of American involvement in Vietnam, highlighted the negotiating efforts of administration since taking office, outlined his policy of Vietnamization, and placed the blame for the continuation of war on the government of North Vietnam. The speech reached its crescendo when he appealed to the public for support.
Sound Familar? Expect Bush to follow the same pattern on Wednesday.
African American Poilitical Pundit says: P.S. The Iraqization policy of Bush won’t work, like the Vietnamization policy of nixon didn’t work. It won’t work for the American people and it won’t work for our American troops. It won’t work for the familes of the 5,640 Iraqi civilians and police were killed in the first half of 2006, or the 17,310 were killed in latter half 2006. I guess no one is listening to the American people.
— African American Political Pundit - Jan 8, 08:46 PM - #Since Bush and Company have the entire world hating the US, how does that stop terrorism?
Oh, sure we are the world’s superpower. But a few nukes will get rid of ALL SUPERPOWERS.
Why can’t we try diplomacy? Bin Laden said that the War on Terror would BANKRUPT AMERICA – and it looks like Bush is playing right iinto Bin Laden’s hands.
I guess when the Bush group have enough money to have enough money to last five or so centuries, maybe they will be satisfied to stop killing people.
Thanks.
— Jenny Hurley - Jan 11, 02:27 PM - #