Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Why 20,000?

I am no military expert, to state the obvious, but:

I oppose escalation of the war in Iraq, but given that the forces in Iraq are not going to be redeployed by this President, it seems to me that an escalation of 20,000 is just a minor tactical move rather than a real new strategy. If we are serious that we will settle for nothing short of "victory" (I assume that means we insist on a stable, friendly, government in Iraq before we withdraw) doesn't that call for overwhelming force and real sacrifice by the American people? Shouldn't he be asking for a great many more troops? Maybe doubling the troops there? Can we really pacify such a large (and largely hostile) population with such a small escalation (in percentage terms).

On another topic: I notice that John Edwards has called for cutting off funding for the escalation. This is the first time I have been very uneasy with something Edwards has said. Can we force Bush to abandon his plan for escalation or will cutting off funds serve to weaken and make more vulnerable our troops?

These are concerns I'd like to hear discussed by some of my blogging friends.

No comments:

Post a Comment