OPINION & EDITORIAL
Bush’s plan for Iraq flawed
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Meredith Togstad:
- Student initiative merits reflection (September 19, 2007)
- Controversial green plates for offenders will bolster safety, despite criticism (May 8, 2007)
- Doyle education policies provide innovative solutions for Wisconsin (April 25, 2007)
- Doyle's plan for energy laudable (April 12, 2007)
- DNA backlog imperils justice (March 21, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Democracy extends to war (April 13, 2007)
- Democrats lack specific strategy (February 1, 2007)
- Escalation ignores Iraqi demands (January 18, 2007)
- Referendum fair gauge of opinion (March 30, 2006)
- Why George Bush will need the draft (November 2, 2004)
by Meredith Togstad
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
President George W. Bush unilaterally proposed further escalation of the war in Iraq recently by suggesting that 21,500 more American troops make their way into the country. Just as the president's initial plan merely to enter the war faced much opposition and skepticism from the American public and Congress alike, the same critics are frowning upon his latest pitch. I stand in agreement with several wary politicians in saying that increased involvement in the Iraq war is thoughtless, foolish and unnecessary.
With the anniversary of the United States' entrance into the war in Iraq rapidly approaching — March 2007 will mark four years of battle — I cannot help but point out that no significant progress has been made. I think supplying more American soldiers will simply elongate this stalemate and force the American public to ignore the truth of the current circumstances. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Rep. Tom Petri, R-Wis., plans to oppose this surge of soldiers in Iraq, claiming it will advance our country's current and unsuccessful foreign policy plan. "Our enterprise in Iraq has been carried out with the best of intentions, … but we have to accept reality," Petri said. His uncomplicated acknowledgment of the war's uncomfortable status quo led him to cast "a historic vote" Feb. 15, where he criticized "the old way [the current foreign policy plan] that isn't getting us anywhere." Despite that, according to Petri, this vote "is expected to be the first rebuke of President Bush since the Iraq war began in March 2003," I find Petri's outlook to be exciting and possibly very valuable to the future of the United States.
What is the point of adding more reinforcements when the instruction is to simply press on with a technique that has led us to this unsettling stopping point?
In addition to refuting the president's proposal, Petri offers two smart and tactical initiatives of his own. Calling them a "new way forward," Petri looks back to history for answers.
Delving into World War I documentation, Petri's two-fold approach mirrors the British seizure of the Mesopotamian region from the Ottoman Empire. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, his suggestions are as follows: "Choose one faction to rule Iraq by force, or partition it into a loose federation of three main groups." Preferring his second scheme, Petri feels confident that separation of the country will render it vulnerable and defenseless and will ultimately allow American forces to retreat from Iraq altogether. I believe this plan to be the ideal combination of both a proactive offense on the part of the United States and a sensible plot for the future of the war.
Furthermore, in support of Petri's ideas and opinions, Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., noted that three previous U.S. troop surges in Iraq resulted in utter failure. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that both Petri and Kind remain critical of what they call a civil war.
"I don't think it's fair to ask our sons and daughters to be policemen in a civil war," Petri said, with Kind adding, "It's time to stop asking them to baby sit a civil war." Someone needs to let the president know that in the circumstances of a civil war in which the United States' role is far from appropriate, a sad and useless fourth attempt will definitely not do the trick.
As it stands at the moment, the White House power players can only toss ideas around regarding the country's next step. In a recent statement released to both President Bush and the people of the United States, Sen. Russ Feingold summed up a few possibilities: "Do we do nothing and hope that the president will put things right, when he has shown time and time again that he is incapable of doing so? Do we simply tell the president that we aren't happy with the way the war is going and that we hope he will change course? Or … do we take strong, decisive action to fix the president's mistaken, self-defeating policies?" Despite Feingold's harsh and sarcastically angled questions to the president, I must again get behind this favored course of action. The time has come to "end our involvement in this tragic and misguided war," as Feingold said, and in doing so, we will show our support and thanks for the devoted American troops and their grieving families.
Therefore, along with my aforementioned superiors in Washington, D.C., I wish to signal to Mr. President that the rose-colored glasses must finally come off, and we need to stop milking the same tired old strategy for all it is worth, immediately. It is the dawning of a new era — a new era where further failure finds no support.
Meredith Togstad (togstad@wisc.edu) is a sophomore intending to major in journalism and French.
Anonymous (February 20, 2007 @ 2:26am):
write about something original
Anonymous (February 20, 2007 @ 6:47am):
I agree, the troop surge is not the answer. The answer is, let the military do what the military is supposed to do and win!! No progress in Iraq? Where have you been? I guess free elections, the end of genocide, rape rooms, etc is not progress.
On the subject of progress, pro is the opposite of con, so I must wonder what if there is no progress in Iraq, it must be because of Congress! Why can't we learn, the best way to win a war is to keep politics out of it. Politics is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans in Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq. Washington ties the hands of our soldiers and does not let them finish the job. Then, on top of that, many in Congress are all but hoping for a loss (or at least it appears that way). Their statements embolden the enemy, just as the anti-military statements did during Vietnam. It is people like you who make this another Vietnam, demoralizing our troops and making the enemy work harder because they know they are winning the war on US soil. Osama was right, Americans are wimps, they do not have heart, they do not have the stomach to win. The men and women there are winners, those who sit here and wish to see them lose are the losers... at the cost of the lives of our men and women in Iraq.
Whether you were for or against the war, who cares, it is your right to disagree. But once our troops are there, give them every tool they need to WIN. When they WIN, they will come home. If politicians and those at home would have given them the support and resources they needed to win from the start, they would have been home already and many more would still be alive.
Anonymous (February 20, 2007 @ 7:19am):
You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
-- Winston Churchill, speech in the House of Commons, May 13, 1940
Anonymous (February 20, 2007 @ 7:23am):
Last night on the NBC evening news, it was reported that al Qaeda leadership has rebuilt itself and now holds an emboldened, pre-9/11 position in Afghanistan.
So, really, what have we done? 1) Nothing in Afghanistan, 2) destabilized Mesopotamia and 3) strengthened Iran.
Heckuva job. Support the troops?
Anonymous (February 20, 2007 @ 8:43am):
Now here is a unique and breath takingly new concept!
Anonymous (February 20, 2007 @ 9:02am):
7:23 It is people like you let Al Qaeda know the American people are a bunch of wimps who have no sense of honor and never want to finish anything right. At the same time inserting politics into something that cannot be won with politics. Good job!
Anonymous (February 20, 2007 @ 10:02am):
No significant progress?
I guess if the metric involves convincing Leftists to spare us their public displays of self-loathing and incontinence, then you've got a point.
Stick to studying French and let the adults run this war.
Anonymous (February 20, 2007 @ 11:56am):
9:02, Did I let al Qaeda resurge? Did I take us to war with 1/3 of the troops I should have had? Did I not build a real coalition and win regional support through diplomacy?
7:19, Are we fighting Germans? This is not even close to WWII. Maybe you should dig up some pointless quotes from Vietnam.
Anonymous (February 20, 2007 @ 1:26pm):
It's interesting that the war on terror is compared to WWII, but it's actually more similar to WWI (see: terror, Black Hand).
We should make note that WWII was a response to the harsh post-war conditions imposed as punishment. The conditions gave Hitler fertile ground for his plans of world domination and revenge.
So, making a mess out of the Middle East is going to create a condition similar to that of Germany after WWI. We are just beginning to fight the "war on terror."
Anonymous (February 20, 2007 @ 1:32pm):
"This is not even close to WWII."
Yer right, the Germans probably would have been satified with Europe and parts of Asia and Africa. The Moslems want the entire world to SUBMIT OR DIE!
Anonymous (February 20, 2007 @ 1:54pm):
Yeah im sorry Meredith, isnt this like a month old?
Anonymous (February 20, 2007 @ 2:33pm):
why is murtha's plan to pull out called, 'redeployment' and the surge is called, 'escalation.'
i think the repubs should play word games like the dems...
just call it a 'redeployment' and everyone's on the same page.
by the way, i'm not sure the author is correct when she says 'congress was skeptical for bush's initial plan.'
i'm thinking they were for it before they were against it.
lastly, if this battle isn't important or is merely a civil war, then why does al qaeda and iran care so much?
in case you didn't notice, the 'surge' already started and baghdad's mayor called it a 'startling success.' mookie al sadr is in iran because he scurred.
sorry to ruin your day with good news from iraq.
Anonymous (February 20, 2007 @ 3:01pm):
Time out...the same people that didn't support then are against it now? You mean like Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, et al?
Seriously. The kind of idiotic ramblings that come out of this paper always make me laugh. Evidently you and Matt Lauer are on the same wavelength, congrats.
And whomever wrote NBC is the "end all be all" on Al-Queda progress needs to watch a few more news outlets. Hiring Keith Olberman as your one and only on-site political advisor kind of disqualifies your news division from being "impartial."
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
