More War, More, More, More

Against the advice of military leaders, US public opinion, and soldiers on the ground in Iraq, Bush is about to increase the number of troops in Iraq by 15-20K. As has been the norm throughout his presidency, he has fired those military officers - Generals John Abizaid and George Casey today - who have disagreed with his policy (and possibly even Condoleeza Rice down the pike?). The recent purge clears the way for escalation. The surge/escalation is, as we know, intended to provide further firepower with the goal of tamping down the steadily increasing violence in Iraq. The notion floating around the media is that this is a temporary stopgap measure designed to provide a pathway out of Iraq.

Let's assume for a moment that escalation is reasonable policy. If so, why should 15-20K be a good number? Shouldn't we be talking about a near-total escalation - the Powell Doctrine as opposed to the Rumsfeld Doctrine - given the present context of broad, violent anarchy in Iraq and a weak puppet state that doesn't even want to be there? By all accounts I've seen, this level increase in troops will be a drop in the bucket in relation to the problem it is intended to solve. Of course, we might speculate that the troop increase is intended to provide a safe-passage corridor for existing US troops to leave the country.... The escalation actually makes more sense if this conjecture is true. But the politics of departure is far from being settled. There is presently no way to leave the country without the Iraq War being a clear loss for the US. Thus, the whole disastrous enterprise spirals further downward and Bush sends in fresh targets.

Escalation, furthermore, tends to motivate an at least proportional response. It did in Vietnam. It will in Iraq. Indeed, simply remaining in the country does it, says Mullah Mohammad Omar about Afghanistan.

Now place the escalation in the Iraq context of civil war, the growth of terroristic attacks, sabotage, and increased domestic and global anger.

First, the bogus trial of Saddam Hussein and the subsequent wildly mismanaged execution / lynching was a further signal of Sunni humiliation. Saddam was made a martyr. Martyrs are motivating symbols that help to clarify and make concrete a political or religious cause, especially through the fog of desperate times. Arresting the executioners who shouted "Moqtada!" is a pointless exercise in damage-control in an environment which is already beyond repair.

Second, the Bush administration has forgotten or never learned that terrorism is not itself a cause, but rather a tactic usually used in response to the overwhelming conventional military power of an opponent. It is a means of fighting, as is "shock and awe." Escalation is the janus face of growing terrorism. In the context of Iraq, we are going to see more attacks from more groups and a more robust Sunni resistance.

Third, infrastructure repair in Iraq is also largely bogus. Already in 2003 one of my graduate students was in Iraq watching contractors slap paint on American-bombed schools and calling that "reconstruction." By most accounts, all basic services have failed, thus prompting Iraqis to either fend for themselves or consolidate tribal organizations. Sabotage attacks on pipelines occur daily. The goal of sabotage is similar to terrorism - it is a tactical move designed to further anger Iraqi citizens. And it's working since the US has shown itself to be incapable of stopping the saboteurs. The proposed escalation, as far as I've seen, has nothing to do with rebuilding infrastructure and everything to do with defense.

Fourth, nobody likes this war except for a small percentage of the American population, defense contractors, and al Qaeda. US standing in the world has plummeted, possibly irreparably. Hardly anyone trusts the current US government and many around the world are increasingly turning that into a distrust of US government and Americans in general. For all of the US's faults in foreign policy, it has always been able to rely on general goodwill from around the globe. But note how even Tony Blair is backing away from the Bush administration. Further, the US could soon be fighting against groups we didn't know existed. An escalation of troops has nothing whatsoever to do with resolving this fourth set of issues.

So what is escalation good for? It's difficult to tell. My own suspicion is one shared by others: that Iraq is such a failure and the current administration so devoid of ideas (and not about to lose any more face) that the war is being left for the next US president. Escalation serves this time-wasting and life-wasting purpose.

[Also at Selves and Others]