Surge to Nowhere

Don't buy the hawks' hype. The war may be off the front pages, but Iraq is broken beyond repair, and we still own it.

By Andrew J. Bacevich
Washington Post

As the fifth anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom nears, the fabulists are again trying to weave their own version of the war. The latest myth is that the "surge" is working.

In President Bush's pithy formulation, the United States is now "kicking ass" in Iraq. The gallant Gen. David Petraeus, having been given the right tools, has performed miracles, redeeming a situation that once appeared hopeless. Sen. John McCain has gone so far as to declare that "we are winning in Iraq." While few others express themselves quite so categorically, McCain's remark captures the essence of the emerging story line: Events have (yet again) reached a turning point. There, at the far end of the tunnel, light flickers. Despite the hand-wringing of the defeatists and naysayers, victory beckons.

From the hallowed halls of the American Enterprise Institute waft facile assurances that all will come out well. AEI's Reuel Marc Gerecht assures us that the moment to acknowledge "democracy's success in Iraq" has arrived. To his colleague Michael Ledeen, the explanation for the turnaround couldn't be clearer: "We were the stronger horse, and the Iraqis recognized it." In an essay entitled "Mission Accomplished" that is being touted by the AEI crowd, Bartle Bull, the foreign editor of the British magazine Prospect, instructs us that "Iraq's biggest questions have been resolved." Violence there "has ceased being political." As a result, whatever mayhem still lingers is "no longer nearly as important as it was." Meanwhile, Frederick W. Kagan, an AEI resident scholar and the arch-advocate of the surge, announces that the "credibility of the prophets of doom" has reached "a low ebb."

(Continued here. Below is one of the WashPo comments on Bacevich's piece:)

auntmo9990 wrote:

Remember Osama Bin Laden's first tape after 9-11? He openly admitted that America would react in anger, with no thought of consequences, and try to attack and occupy a Muslim country.

His GOAL, he said, was for America to get bogged down in a Muslim country fighting asymmetrical warfare based on its notrious pride, so the cost of the war would drain them financially and ultimately, to the financial breaking point, just like had happened to Russia in its ten year occupation of Afghanistan.

Perhaps, folks, George W. Bush played right into his hands.

How DO you occupation-forever folks propose to PAY for the $10 billion per month cost of Iraq?

So far, Bush has BORROWED the money from Japan and China, so you could keep your little $300 or $600 tax cut. It's how he increased our national debt from $5 trillion to $9 trillion in 7 years.

Didn't the Greatest Generation believe that PAYING for WWII and not passing the cost to future generations was JUST AS PATRIOTIC as fighting the war itself?

How DO you war supporters suggest we pay for TEN MORE YEARS of Iraq, at $10 billion per month, without going bankrupt?

Or are you aiding and abbetting Osama Bin Laden's original plan, by not being willing to answer that question?

Bite the real bullet, brave ones.