The Upcoming “Surge” Plan for Iraq

By Brigitte L. Nacos
The linguistic acrobatics performed by the White House spin doctors have been once again adopted by the political class—regardless whether they agree or disagree with the President’s next step—and by many in the news media. Instead of calling the expected increase in the number of troops in Iraq an escalation or build-up, the more benign White House term “surge” seems to carry the day. Whether the President and his advisers decide on 15,000 or 20,000 or 25,000 additional troops to be deployed in Baghdad and elsewhere and for how long, will not matter as far as the outcome of this alleged leg in the “war on terrorism” is concerned. Caught in a deadly battle between Shiites and Sunnis and under assault of terrorists the U.S. invasion helped to recruit and drew to Iraq, more American soldiers on the ground will mean more American fatalities and casualties in addition to the more than 3,000 Americans already killed and more than 20,000 injured in this war. It is hard to imagine that President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and Senators McCain and Graham and others still believe that this war can be won. Nor do we know what “winning” means for them—and for us. On yesterday’s “Meet the Press” Senator Lindsey Graham appeared close to hysterical in his insistence that more boots on the ground were needed for the United States not to lose but to win this war.