Surging right along

The HuffPo has a breathless headline this morning--"Bush plans second surge for Iraq". It links to an SFGate story destined to become major news:

The Bush administration is quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year, an analysis of Pentagon deployment orders showed Monday.

But this isn't the only surge. There are surges going on all over the place.

For instance, this news might bring on a resurgence of the "Iraq wasn't part of 9/11 and therefore we should only be fighting in Afghanistan" argument, which itself calls for a surged rebuttal. Afghanistan did not attack us, al Qaeda did. There is evidence that Taliban leader Mullah Omar was against 9/11 because he knew the likely result would be his ouster (a rather perceptive notion not to the level of sage by any means). The Taliban were simply harboring terrorists but had not declared war.

Ironically so was Saddam, who'd harbored a terrorist involved in the first attack on the World Trade Center. He'd also been in contact with AQ, tried to kill a former president and was developing a plan to blow up Radio Free Iraq in Prague. Somehow the same argument doesn't apply to him even in a September 12th world, as the logic follows the tired old path of, 'we must only engage the people who attacked us on 9/11 not the people involved in any previous attacks'.

That same thinking produces the following exit strategy: declare another "mission accomplished" and announce our departure, reminding the world we eliminated Saddam, installed a government that held free elections and finally answered the WMD question. Funny, we've accomplished the same thing in Afghanistan and nobody is suggesting we leave. The Taliban are regrouping, you know, even though the Taliban never attacked us and there were mainly Saudis on the planes.

Tra-la-la and who cares if the remnants of al Qaeda in Iraq might strengthen upon our departure thanks to Ba'ath Party money and influence, secret surges from other Sunni Gulf States trying to push back against Iranian hegemony, and support from local Sunnis afraid of emboldened Shi'a death squads. Not our problemo as they say--our problem forever remains in Afghanistan, in close proximity to Osama bin Forgotten.

Maybe our problem is everywhere but Afghanistan. Harry Reid is de facto working with the suspected Iranian surgemasters with help from a sympathetic US media, since the Iranians' tactic is probably to bring all the warring parties in Iraq together long enough to ouster American forces before Decision 08. The only way to do that is by creating so many Coalition casualties that Reid's hand will be strengthened to the point of defeating Bush's will. It's a tired argument yes, but America is still teetering at a very important crossroads.

MORE 5/22/07

Seems the CIA might be surging, too, if we're to believe Brian Ross's "current and former" intelligence gossips. It's amazing that anyone thinks we can win a war by telling the enemy our every move upfront, unless this story itself is disinformation.

STILL MORE 5/22/07

Knoxville Blogger Michael Silence points out a plan put forth by Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, essentially recommending that Bush hop the Baker/Hamilton train to Kuwait City:

One can't help but wonder if this isn't an attempt to save face and get out of Iraq at the same time. I've known Lamar for years. He's smart, savvy and politically astute.

No doubt. Alexander's picture is in the dictionary beside the definition of "connected". Looks like the 40 pound brains are at work on this. My 4 ounce version is struggling to keep up, but it appears the machinery might be grinding out the final fix, er fallback plan, "in case" the surge fails. These politicians surely want Iraq tidied up before Decision 08 so perhaps that's why the Democrats have flinched and are willing to remove the timetables from their war spending bill, ie, they've been told to expect changes.

Don't know, but if such a plan really does exist and the surge is just a dog and pony show before the main act of 'exit stage left' it seems damn unfair to our troops. They are effectively being sent into a war zone for political theatrics. I hope I'm wrong, because the only reason I've supported the war is a belief that Saddam was a major threat who needed removal before America was ever going to win the GWoT. Bush has shown the ability to push back against the old guard before so nothing is yet etched in stone, but if we're not in this conflict to win, let's leave tomorrow.