lly announced his plan in response to the situation in Iraq. Contrary to the recommendation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Report and many military advisors and, most importantly, public opinion, Bush intends to increase the amount of troops in Iraq by 21,500. He said, “We have a new strategy with a new mission: Helping secure the population, especially in Baghdad.” In addition, Bush intends to propose increasing the amount of reconstruction aid to Iraq by $2.1 billion.
The response to his strategy has been overwhelmingly negative from both parties. Democrats say that this plan is not what Americans voted for (according to the results of this past election). A bipartisan Senate resolution from the Biden-Hagel-Levin trio said, “It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating U.S. troop presence in Iraq.” Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska, says that the President’s plan is “dangerously irresponsible.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was berated for the president’s plan by the Senate Foreign Policy Committee in a recent hearing. Evidently, the consensus does not agree with the president’s statement that “our plan puts Iraqis in the lead.”
However, in this week’s edition of The Economist, which has been extremely critical of the president, a differing stance was taken. The opening paragraph ends with a surprising statement: “We don’t admire Mr. Bush, but on this we think he is right.” The article goes on to explain why an immediate reduction of troops could leave Iraq in a state of violence and a “full scale civil war.” The article does not argue that the surge of troops will prove to be successful, but that it will prevent “three consequences: a failed state, a state of partition or a state hostile to Westerners.”
Although I can agree with the general population that we are currently failing in Iraq, I remain divided on how to move forward. Pulling out when Iraq is in a state of extreme violence and political instability is a terrible idea. However, we must concede at this point that a stable state thriving as a democracy is a vision of the past. It is now our duty to aid this country in economic and political recovery, and the path to peace is by calming the violence. This will mean that the government caters to the desires of the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds to control the oil. Perhaps an increase in military presence will lead to an internal ceasefire.
But what if the opposite occurs? What if we increase the troop level, which increases the spending in Iraq (and our lofty debt to pay off when we soon enter the labor force) and the violence only escalates? At that point, we will admit to failure-at the cost of many more American and Iraqi lives. This is one of the rare occasions when I am able to say that I simply don’t have a solid opinion on the subject, but I fear the outcome of either removing troops or following the president’s plan of a surge.
Cari Johns is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences.
