Three Buckets of Air

Three Buckets of Air

George W. Bush’s mid-term post-election strategy for winning the War in Iraq can be summed up as more of the same. That is what “surge” means. The President acknowledges it is a chancy approach that will cost more lives and money. But for lack of a better idea, our “Decider” proposes that renewed effort and good fortune should do the trick.

How does one sell this non-change of course? When asked why you spent the grocery money on a lottery ticket, what you do is offer “talking points.” (See my blog, “How to think about Iraq.”) Talking-points are substitutes for reasoning. They serve to divert. An open-eyed, clear thinking listener will notice a particular three talking-points repeatedly offered by the surge supporters. I call them “buckets of air.” Someone less polite would call them crocks of baloney. But there is no need to be crude here. A quick peek into these buckets will clearly reveal the emptiness of the transport.

Bucket l
“We must support our troops.”

This statement assumes there is only one way to support troops, which is a premise that stands naked on the street. But those who speak it show no embarrassment. There are multiple ways to show support. Provide adequate armor and equipment; pursue diplomacy energetically; re-deploy the troops; do something about the poor care given to wounded soldiers at Walter Reed military hospital; honor the troops with medals, ceremony, and other supportive acts. Disagreeing with the ”surge” is not a statement of non-support!

Bucket 2
“If we leave now, short of victory, Iraq will fall into chaos and disaster.”

Chaos and disaster exist now. Why can’t we be satisfied with ousting Saddam Hussein? It took our troops to do this; and the chaos settled in. Since the vainglorious moment of “Mission Accomplished,“ our troops have succeeded in providing the opportunity and training ground, if not the excuse, for increased terrorist activity. If we can’t solve this problem, why contribute to it, with no end game and no reward.

Bucket 3

“If we don’t fight the terrorists in Iraq, we will end up fighting them here.”

Shades of the infamous Vietnam “domino theory.” If war is the game, maybe here is where we should fight them. Using a fighting analogy from the world of sports, why play on the opponent’s court? The home court advantage is always a plus factor, especially in guerilla warfare. Could a ball team win the World Series if all its games were “away”? At home we could handle the terrorists with our “B squad.“ At home other resources and methods could be effectively employed. The army would be only one of the players, and its role could happily be reduced. Putting the terrorist threat back into the arena of law enforcement rather than military combat would be an important first step in defeating this enemy.

In summary

Replying to critics, even Tony Snow was left grabbing for air, when he cried out, “Where’s their plan?” as if the names Baker and Hamilton were unknown to him.

Before your next trip to Las Vegas, check your wallet for “air.”

Doug Good

How To Think About Iraq

How To Think About Iraq
Not what to think, but how to think.


Following is a summation of the arguments usually presented for and against President Bush’s new “surge” strategy for military victory in Iraq, along with the counter points.

Bush’s plan: Assuming that the problem has been not enough troops to defeat the insurgents, we will “surge” ahead with an increased number--21,500 immediately. With the cooperation of the Al-Maliki government in taking the necessary steps to replace our involvement with its own forces, we will be able to begin withdrawing our troops in about 6 months.

Pro-Surge (Each point is followed by the critics’ counter point.)

• More troops is the way to victory. We have not won because we have not had enough there. Numbers are what count. Enough troops will defeat the enemy.

Counterpoint: This may be true in traditional, classic warfare, but not with guerilla wars.

• We will add another 92,000 troops incrementally over the next 5 years.

Counterpoint: The generals estimate that 500,000 are needed. 135,000 (there now), plus 21,500, plus 92,000, doesn’t come close, not to mention that this shortfall won’t even be reached by the “surge” plan before 5 years from now. The President is in the awkward position of saying the success of his plan depends on additional troops but does not plan to send enough to succeed.

• We must support our troops. Increased numbers is the obvious, most effective way to support them.

Counterpoint: This assumes there is only one way to support troops, when in reality there are multiple ways. Provide adequate armor and equipment, pursue diplomacy energetically, re-deploy the troops, investigate the poor care wounded soldiers are getting at Walter Reed Military hospital, honor the troops with medals, ceremony, recognition, and other supportive acts. Disagreeing with the “surge” is not a statement of non-support.

• Prime Minister Al-Maliki, after initial objection to the “surge” plan, now says he will cooperate.

Counterpoint: He has said this before. His track record and the questionable strength of his leadership in his fractionalized government is a poor basis for what Bush admits is our “gamble.”

• Securing Baghdad with these additional troops will assure political stability for the new government.

Counterpoint: A secure capitol city is necessary, but by itself will not resolve the political and religious issues fueling the “civil war.”

• To quit now would mean the soldiers killed in the fight have died in vain. (This is not said out loud, but is understood.)

Counterpoint: No soldier dies in vain when following his duty, whatever the “cause.” Whether the cause is in vain is up to others, not the soldiers. Soldiers are asked to fight, not to debate. If they do their job, they deserve honor, even in a bad cause.

• We are on the winning slope; don’t stop now.

Counterpoint: To say we are winning is either whistling in the wind, or a state of denial. To put it bluntly, the generals and the official reports of the intelligence community say we can’t win this particular war.

• Where there is no risk, there is no gain .

Counterpoint: I thought you just said we were winning, so where is the gamble?

• We either fight the terrorists in Iraq or we will fight them here at home.

Counterpoint: The home court advantage is always a plus factor, especially in guerilla warfare. At home, other resources and methods can be effectively employed. The army would be only one of the players, and its role could happily be reduced. Putting the terrorist threat back into the arena of law enforcement rather than military combat would be an important first step in defeating this enemy.

• At least the President has a plan. Where is the plan of his critics? (Implying they have none.)

Counterpoint: The President proposes that there is only one workable plan. Any idea that doesn’t agree with his idea of what will work, therefore doesn’t deserve to be called a plan. If he didn’t think of it, it isn’t a plan. Actually Congress provided him with a plan in the Baker-Hamilton bipartisan study report. He chose to ignore it. Other approaches, which could be worked into a plan, are widely discussed and proposed by national commentators, retired generals, congresspersons, even presidential candidates. The President is our leader charged with coordinating policy. If he disregards well considered and detailed alternate suggestions, these ideas are denied the status of “plans” for official purposes. But this doesn’t mean other plans don’t exist.

Against-Surge (Each point is followed by a counterpoint from Surge supporters)

• We are losing the war by all accounts, and the nature of the fighting has shown that we can’t win this type of fighting with the military strategy we have used. The “surge” is the same strategy increased. It is not a new approach. It is more of what has failed so far.

Counterpoint: All wars have ebb and flow. A “can’t do” attitude of course won’t win. We have to be patient and not lose hope. America always wins, and we are the strongest military power in the world.

• Going it alone without international support has been unwise. Our “allies” contributions have been miniscule, and our biggest supporter, Britain, has begun withdrawal of its few troops. The cost, in both lives and money, and the onus of defeat is ours to bear.

Counterpoint: America has always taken care of itself. To ask others for help, takes control of our fate out of our own hands. We know what needs to be done, and we have the power to do it. Why give others a say in the decisions that we need to make for the protection of our own citizens and national interest. We need to control our options in order to safeguard our traditions and manage our destiny.

• Our “western gun slinger” approach to threats, characteristic of the frontier cowboy myths, has opened us to ridicule by other countries who are more seasoned in experience with terrorist threats. After 9/11 the world empathized with us and was eager to have us join in an international approach to quell this modern danger. Instead our unilateral moves have alienated our friends. We squandered an opportunity.

Counterpoint: Who needs friends. 9/11 was our problem; we can take care of it. If we step forward and take the lead, our aggressive energy will bring respect and even admiration. Other nations will fall in line wanting to be friends with a country that is willing to stand up for what is right.

• Our army is stretched too thin. Our military is over committed, which encourages other countries, like Iran and North Korea, to take advantage of our Iraq distraction. We have had trouble recruiting even enough soldiers to serve in Afghanistan and Iraq. As a result the quality of troops is dropped with lower recruiting standards. And national guardsmen have to serve multiple terms, often in succession.

Counterpoint: There is always the draft. And don’t demean the soldiers that are risking their lives, by questioning their quality.

• The Iraq war is a constitutionally unsanctioned war. The President has been using wartime justifications for power brokering that have traditionally been allowed only with the consent of a Senate that has “declared” war. And when called to account for his preemptive, confrontational style of leadership, the President has chosen to create a competition between the three government branches that borders on a constitutional crisis.

Counterpoint: The Constitution makes the President the Commander-in-Chief of the military forces. In a time of unprecedented emergency, he should be allowed to do the job he is expected to do without being dragged down by debilitating politics.

• Secrecy and lies have been the continuing hallmark of the President and his agents.

Counterpoint: An effective leader can’t get things done by worrying about what people think or by wasting time with protocol and coddling. The President has the responsibility of safeguarding the nation and protecting the citizens. If he does his job, future generations will thank him.

Doug Good