by Matthew Lynch

Created on: March 12, 2007   Last Updated: April 19, 2007

Recently, President Bush unveiled his plan to increase the number of U. S. troops in Iraq by 20,000 soldiers. In addition to an increase in the number of troops, the citizens of Iraq would begin to profit share from the countries revenue from the sale of crude oil. This revelation has left Democrats and Republicans alike, shocked and appalled. As far as the opposition goes, Barack Obama, a prominent African American politician, contends that if new troops were added to the mix, he would rather see them deployed to areas with verified Al-Qaeda strongholds. Democrat's took umbrage at the fact that Bush failed to consult them during the planning phase of his new policy. They felt that this new policy was a directive rather than a collaborative effort between the two major political factions in the U. S. Also, our current involvement in Iraq has us mediating a Civil War between the Sunni's and Shiites, with no signs of a progress.

Surprisingly, the President does have his share of supporters. Joe Liberman, a Democrat from Massachusetts, commended the President for plotting a new course of action in Iraq and refusing to accept defeat, which he believes would put the security of the United States at risk.

For many Americans, the war in Iraq is reminiscent of Vietnam. Although the President has shown some willingness to acknowledge his past mistakes, his sudden epiphany does not make up for his incompetence and arrogance during our countries time of crisis. There is certainly no wisdom in sending more troops into a war that we have no chance of winning.

Great Britain has recently announced that it does not plan to send troops to Iraq, apparently an acknowledgement of the futility of such a move. In fact, according to a recent story in the British Telegraph, Great Britain will reduce its peacekeeping force in Iraq by 3,000 before June.

Leaders of countries such as South Korea, Australia, and Japan have all reported that they will support Bush's plan, but they do not plan to send more troops to the region. In fact, Japan recently withdrew 600 non-combat troops last year and South Korea will withdraw 1,100 of its troops by June of 2007. This leads many observers to conclude that their statements were merely ceremonial. Bush and his advisors must realize that Iraq's citizens will never acquiesce to a long-term occupation of their homeland, the same way Americans would refuse to be occupied by some foreign or alien race.

Bottom Line: We all have heard the same rhetoric before, but the bottom line is that an escalation of the war in Iraq is nothing more than a quest to control it's crude oil deposits and to prepare for a major offensive against Syria and Iran, which will catapult the U. S. into an even more complicated conflict. Can you imagine being a solider fighting in Iraq? Bamboozled into believing that you are protecting your country from terrorists, when in reality you are halfway around the globe mediating a Civil War that you have no way of stabilizing because it has literally been going on for centuries. You believe that you are fighting terrorism, but to the insurgents you are the terrorist. Sure, you have ousted Saddam Hussein and his fascist myrmidon, but why are you still there? The recent Congressional elections transferred control of the Senate and the House of Representatives from Republican Control; proof that the country is fed up with Bush's Iraq policy. Apparently the President did not get the memo.

Learn more about this author, Matthew Lynch.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.