Bush. McCain: Euphemism for Escalation
The "surge," as the troop increase is being called, has its greatest champion in Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, but almost nobody besides McCain, Bush and neoconservative diehards think it'll work: Not the American generals in Iraq; not the Iraqis; not the American public
Were we to apply the terminology of the Vietnam war, a troop increase would be called an "escalation". The Decider is on holiday, contemplating the various bunch of bad options he faces because of his bungled Iraqi policies. It appears that he has ruled out talking to both Damascus and Tehran, and several news sources indicate that he may be leaning toward increasing the number of troops in Iraq. With demands pouring in from almost every quarter for a troop reduction plan, Bush is probably going to attempt to increase the US combat presence after Christmas. One wonders why, given the generally grim assessments of any prospect for a successful escalation. Unless numerous news sources have been completely misled for spin purposes, the Saudis have expressed rather serious objections to US troop withdrawals, saying that if chaos ensues, the Kingdom might just have to throw its considerable financial support to the Sunni factions in the ongoing civil war.
Would the US populace put up with an escalation, even a temporary one? Is it possible for the US to even begin to draw down without risking the involved wrath of the Saudis, thus prolonging an already ongoing conflict and allowing regional interests to dominate it at the expense of the long suffering Iraqi populace?
We are in a familiar place. An escalation is necessary for peace. And we must continue to destroy in order to save. What a mess!