The Surge

No, the answer is not an escalation of forces, but we're not leaving Iraq anytime soon so we might as well start giving the generals the resources they need to fight this war. Some critics believe this will just give the Iraqis an excuse to not step up and assume control of security. Obviously that is a pressure that must constantly be applied to that government no matter what. But I find it hard to believe that an extra 21,500 soldiers will not help. Some critics argue that it simply means 21,500 more targets. Technically that's true, but only if all 21,500 soldiers are standing together in an open area. When critics level their arguments against this course of action they are only thinking about withdrawal..."If we send more troops, then that's a clear signal that we'll never leave". Wrong. This mission is no longer the poster child for spreading freedom and democracy in the Middle East. It is about leaving a country and its people in a situation where they have a chance to succeed.

Right now Iraq is essentially a clean slate, meaning that if we were to leave today, that country would fall into such utter chaos that forces (American or otherwise) would have to return some day. The civil war would be all out, Iran would move in to assert its influence and support the Shias against the Sunnis, and the Kurds would immediately secede. As bad as the war is now, the fallout from our departure would be far worse. Plus, America would lose whatever credibility we have left as a police force. We led a UN contingent into Somalia in 1993 and left it no better (arguably worse) than we found it; we invaded Iraq in 1990 and supported the Shia and the Kurds, who were brutally slaughtered by Saddam after we left; and here we are again, forced to decide whether to leave Iraq a vacuum for whatever radicalism has the most muscle to control it. I am not a Republican who believes we will win this war if we just "stay the course", but there are severe repercussions of an American withdrawal that must be considered.