What to call "the surge" in Iraq?
I've been thinking about this for a couple weeks now but when I read this in Slate by Michael Kingsley, I figured I had to blog about it... and the thing is, just like Michael, I don't know what to call "the surge" in Iraq anymore.
More than a year after Bush 2.0 declared "the surge", we're still surging. When "the surge" was pitched to the American people, it was supposed to be an up tick in troops by about 20,000 (which turned into 30,000) over the course of 6 months to create the breathing room for the Iraq government to pass 18 political benchmarks. Then, "the surge" would pull back to the troop numbers pre-surge and then lower. Now, however, we are "pausing" the surge to keep hold of the gains that we've made. This "pause" changes the definition of "the surge" altogether. I'm all for reduced violence in Iraq and I'm glad to see Sadr extend his cease fire for another six months but crediting "the surge" with this reduced violence is another linguistic shell game that Bush 2.0 is playing by calling it the wrong name.
You see, it wasn't "the surge" that got us these gains, it was a "troop increase"... the same "troop increase" we should have implemented in 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006 and I'm convinced that politics and egos got in the way of a "troop increase" when we needed it and when I was advocating such. Now more of our troops are fighting over there to give the Iraq government (who are on a 5 week vacation as I type) the room they need to complete the 18 benchmarks that they are only 3 of 18 on now. But, you see, there are added benefits of the "troop increase" too... to secure a more positive spin on Bush 2.0's legacy and to help elect John McCain president. Two political goals that should have nothing to do with our troops in Iraq.
UPDATE: Still making my way through this article from Nir Rosen in Rolling Stone observing first hand the progress in Iraq but this reporting adds a whole NEW aspect to "the surge" that puts Sadr's motives into a much clearer context.
More than a year after Bush 2.0 declared "the surge", we're still surging. When "the surge" was pitched to the American people, it was supposed to be an up tick in troops by about 20,000 (which turned into 30,000) over the course of 6 months to create the breathing room for the Iraq government to pass 18 political benchmarks. Then, "the surge" would pull back to the troop numbers pre-surge and then lower. Now, however, we are "pausing" the surge to keep hold of the gains that we've made. This "pause" changes the definition of "the surge" altogether. I'm all for reduced violence in Iraq and I'm glad to see Sadr extend his cease fire for another six months but crediting "the surge" with this reduced violence is another linguistic shell game that Bush 2.0 is playing by calling it the wrong name.
You see, it wasn't "the surge" that got us these gains, it was a "troop increase"... the same "troop increase" we should have implemented in 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006 and I'm convinced that politics and egos got in the way of a "troop increase" when we needed it and when I was advocating such. Now more of our troops are fighting over there to give the Iraq government (who are on a 5 week vacation as I type) the room they need to complete the 18 benchmarks that they are only 3 of 18 on now. But, you see, there are added benefits of the "troop increase" too... to secure a more positive spin on Bush 2.0's legacy and to help elect John McCain president. Two political goals that should have nothing to do with our troops in Iraq.
UPDATE: Still making my way through this article from Nir Rosen in Rolling Stone observing first hand the progress in Iraq but this reporting adds a whole NEW aspect to "the surge" that puts Sadr's motives into a much clearer context.
Comments