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 ([email protected]) is a sophomore intending to major in journalism and French.
