It seems that George W. Bush is going to take Fred Kagan's advice and send more troops to Iraq. The bad news, as Justin Logan points out is that Kagan's strategy seems to mostly be based on cooking the books. The good news, however, is that this will probably damage John McCain presidential aspirations in the long term.
« Pop Quiz | Main | A Unified Security Budget »
More Troops!
14 Dec 2006 04:34 pm
Comments (12)
"I'm kinda guessing that ship sailed awhile ago."
It hasn't. In a general election, I'll bet McCain will win in a landslide, unless his position on Iraq brings him down.
Having said that, McCain may not make it out of the GOP primary, regardless of his position on Iraq.
Unless, of course, it works.
20,000 troops? No way that would turn the tide.
200,000 troops? Maybe.
To accomplish the neocon's dream of invading and reforming the entire middle east would require a draft and setting the economy on a true war footing ala WWII.
I think some of the neocons know this and believe that the country can be slowly dragged in that direction using Leo Strauss' noble lies.
"I think some of the neocons know this and believe that the country can be slowly dragged in that direction using Leo Strauss' noble lies."
No, I think they think we can be dragged into that position by fait accompli: Bush simply keeps destabilizing ME countries and pissing off the rest of the world (including, esp., our creditors) until our military is thoroughly broken, our economy down the toilet, and there's nothing left to do but start shooting nukes off in all directions.
That Bush has lost his tame Congress is a setback only in the legalistic, institution-respecting, law-abiding sense, which Bush has never exhibited any sign of having. He still has unilateral military authority. He can still pull off the neocons' nihilistic wet dream by bombing Iran. (One can hope the military itself would say "Hell no!" to that.)
If we send a billion troops, the Iraqis won't even be able to find each other, let alone kill each other. I think this is the obvious solution.
> It hasn't. In a general election, I'll bet McCain will win in a
> landslide, unless his position on Iraq brings him down.
Well, I agree the McCain of 2000 could have won in something resembling a landslide. The problem today, I think, is his relative popularity with centrist independents & Democrats was due to his opposition to stupid conservative policies. Now he is frantically pandering to Pat Robertson & co. which undermines his "straight talk express" act. As for being a "political maverick", until now he has mostly been a Republican one, which is a good thing to the 60%+ of the population which isn't conservative. Unfortunately, his hawkish views on Iraq are now only being shared by a shrinking minority of Americans. He is essentially advocating "more of the same" here, and I think that is going to be an even less popular position in 2008 than it is now.
---
Of course, *IF* McCain gets his wish now and *IF* the situation in Iraq somehow improves drastically in 2007-08 (two mighty big ifs), then he would indeed be a formidable candidate even in the Republican primaries. I do think Pelosi & Reid should support a plan to modestly increase troop levels in Baghdad (there would be a political price to pay of course, e.g. tax raises aimed at wealthy GOP leaning interest groups...). If Iraq remains a mess despite the "McCain plan", Democratic anti-war activists will benefit. If McCain turns out to be right, the country as a whole will be better off and President McCain would be more likely than his predecessor to work with Democrats. So it's a win-win situation to some extent.
MARCU$
The idea seems to be to commit 20,000 troops to house-to-house fighting to secure Baghdad. There's a high likelihood that such a plan will lead to open fighting with the Shiite militias. In other words, the adminstration seems to be recycling old German plans from Stalingrad. God help us.
"If they are to fight, they are too few. If they are to die, they are too many" as somebody once said . . .
The good news, however, is that this will probably damage John McCain presidential aspirations in the long term.
It probably seals the fate of the Republican Party for a good, long time, as well.
"It probably seals the fate of the Republican Party for a good, long time, as well."
I would gladly let the Republicans continue to be a powerhouse in American politics if it prevented more American soldiers from dying in Iraq over the next few years -- if the price for bringing them home is a Republican Party that isn't totally discredited, I'm willing to make that deal. I wish there were some way to prevent Iraqi civilians from dying in Iraq over the next few years too, but frankly it doesn't look like there are any good options for that anymore.
Matt let me point out in your bad news analysis above, you omit future widows & widowers and children that will be missing a parent. Also the mental and physical injuries from those that will return. Please don't stray too far from the human cost of Bush's mistake.
Comments closed December 28, 2006.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Unless, of course, it works.
But I'm kinda guessing that ship sailed awhile ago.
Posted by Stu | December 14, 2006 4:59 PM