The President's New Way Forward isn't just the wrong change of course. It's no change at all.
Since Day One, the Administration has tried to conduct this war on the cheap - not enough troops to secure Baghdad and prevent looting, not enough armor to protect the troops we sent, and not enough support for the families back at home. Troops on the ground have known for years that the strategy wasn't working. So the President unveiled his New Way Forward - which is really just Stay the Course 2.0: another weak, half-cooked plan that serves to confirm yet again that the President does not understand who the enemies are in Iraq or how to effectively fight them.
George Will, Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) and others have called this move by the President the military equivalent of a "Hail Mary" pass. I used to be a football coach, and I think that analogy is a bit off. If Iraq is like a football game, we are down big late in the fourth quarter. The surge plan is not a Hail Mary. It's like calling a draw play. It is a catastrophically stupid call. At least a Hail Mary gives you a chance to score.
Of course, I hope that I am wrong, and that this plan works. But military experts, including the new commander in Iraq, Gen. Petraeus, will tell you, a serious counterinsurgency requires a ratio of 1 counterinsurgent for every 40 members of the population. This "surge" is nothing like that. In fact, it's even less than you think. One story that got buried this week was the imminent withdrawal of half the British forces currently in Iraq. Factor that in, and the "surge" suddenly becomes an increase in ground strength of less than 15%. Like Jon Stewart said, that's not a surge -- that's not even a good tip at a restaurant.
To meet the ratio recommended by Gen. Petraeus would require a politically and perhaps militarily impossible troop surge of several hundred thousand people. Several hundred thousand troops - where have we heard that before? From Gen. Shinseki, Army Chief-of-Staff in 2003, when asked how many troops it would take to pacify Iraq. But the Administration didn't listen to military experts then, and we're still not listening to them now. Not the Joint Chiefs or the panel of retired generals convened yesterday by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - all of whom opposed the troop surge.
And it's not just the four-stars who have lost faith in the Bush strategy. For the first time, a majority of troops on the ground also oppose the Administration's handling of the war, according to a new Army Times poll.
Even Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran, has publicly committed himself to opposing President's plan. Hagel describes our strategy in Iraq as "dangerously irresponsible" and "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam," and says "I will do everything I can to stop the president's policy." Hagel has been right on the war for a long time now--and he should be listened to.
Instead, the White House has found a new rhetorical tactic to deflect criticism, repeating variations on the phrase "Well, if you don't like our idea, why haven't you offered a better one?" People have been offering a number of alternative plans for Iraq. But none of them have the advantage of being rammed down the throat of the world by a stubborn President. That argument is about as strong as Bush's ludicrous claim this week on PBS that most Americans are sacrificing for the cause in Iraq... by experiencing the emotional discomfort of watching the daily casualty reports on their TVs.
People have been offering alternative plans for Iraq for months now: Iraq Study Group, members of the Counsel of Foreign Relations and retired General Zinni among them. These plans differ in the details, but they all focus on diplomacy and reconstruction, not saber-rattling and half-measures. They also all agree on one thing: the need to act now if we are going to salvage anything in Iraq.
So although it may not be a surprise that the President still isn't listening, it is an outrage. Because every day we stick with this losing strategy comes at the expense of the American troops on the ground. As the toll of troops killed in Iraq grows, it's easy to lose sight of what the 3,000+ casualty number means. So here's the story of one of them.
Ian C. Anderson, from Prairie Village, KS, died this week when an IED exploded next to his Humvee. He was 22 years old. His wife, Suzanne, 21, who went to high school with Ian and who was also serving in Iraq, has been sent home to be with their 3-year-old daughter.
While the troop surge is unlikely to change the situation in Iraq, it will without a doubt cost more American troops like Ian Anderson their lives. The only question remains is how long the troops on the ground will still have to wait for President Bush to do more than pay lip service to their sacrifice, and to give them a real plan.