3 of 63

Write now Article Tools

In 1917, France heard General Nivelle tell it, "We have the formula for victory." He then launched France on a catastrophic offensive. In May 2007, we heard President Bush tell us his own formula for victory, the surge. Admittedly, we need a new formula. This is true, because despite earlier "mission accomplished" assurances, the United States had bogged in Iraq through a combination of terrorist attacks (suicide bombs, hidden mine, ambushes) and bloody sectarian fighting.

Nevertheless, can we confidently say that the surge proposed in President Bush's speech the right formula? True, we can win militarily. The United States has the most effective military in the world. Our soldiers have the heart to accomplish any military mission we set before them. As General Petraeus, the military commander in Iraq, has aid, "[t]here is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq."

By this, General Petraeus refers to the need for a political solution. At best, the surge proposed by President Bush and implemented by our military can only provide breathing room for the Iraqis to achieve a political solution. However, unless the Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish minorities are willing to take advantage of that breathing room, the surge is destined for failure.

The Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance runs Iraq as the main coalition partner, with Kurds as minority members. Yet, the Shiite faction (the majority in Iraq) has little incentive to grants the Sunnis concessions. If they can play lip service to the Bush administration until some point past September 2007 (when the next congressionally mandated report is due), they expect that we will begin to withdraw our forces, leaving the Shiite factions with help from Iran to take full control. Conversely, the Sunni faction has withdrawn from the Iraqi government. Thus, there is no sign of any significant progress in Iraq. The surge will not (and has not) alter this fact.

The United States sits between multiple hostile factions. To believe that we can, with an occupying force that has outlived its welcome, win over a recalcitrant local population, and win this war with an additional 20,000 troops is far-fetched. The British stayed in Ireland for 38 years. We stayed in Vietnam for over twenty years.

Despite what President Bush had to say in his speech, we are not in this war for months or even years. We are in Iraq for decades. The surge is but another mile marker on what will be a long, bloody road.

Learn more about this author, Brad Kincaid.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Reactions to President Bush's speech on adding 20,000+ more troops in Iraq?
We want to hear your view. Write now!