In the President's speech today, he paints a pretty gloomy picture of the near future for his little war.
This summer is going to be a critical time for the new strategy. The last of five reinforcement brigades we are sending to Iraq is scheduled to arrive in Baghdad by mid-June. As these reinforcements carry out their missions the enemies of a free Iraq, including al Qaeda and illegal militias, will continue to bomb and murder in an attempt to stop us. We're going to expect heavy fighting in the weeks and months. We can expect more American and Iraqi casualties.
mmmm hm. I see, I see. What's the definition of success in Iraq again, Mr. President?
(arguments and snark below the fold)
"Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our country that, as you know, have a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives, and that's what we're trying to achieve."
Ah, I see. So we have to be less successful, before we can be more successful. Why did I not think of this?
On the other hand...
we will not set an artificial timetable for leaving Iraq, because that would embolden the terrorists and make them believe they can wait us out
Obviously, we wouldn't want to be successful right now. That would be silly. We can't give up the potential successes of the future for the successes of the moment. That strategy would be insufficiently violent.
I know this has been argued before, but in all seriousness, what's so wrong with a timetable that causes a temporary stop to violence? One of the primary problems with Iraq, if we take the administrations various equivocations at face value, is that the level of violence both prevents the Iraqi government from getting much done, and the American forces from training the Iraqi forces to "stand up so we can stand down".
Seems to me a timetable is EXACTLY what is needed. Tell the insurgency - "hey, take a break for a few months. We promise we'll leave around December-ish." Then, one of two things happens.
If the insurgency stops for awhile, that's just about perfect. A cease to violence will allow plenty of training for their army/police force. It will allow the government to maybe come to a consensus and make things fair. Rebuilding can happen, the people will get electricity, there will be jobs, and hope, and life.
When December rolls around, if everything is going well, the wind may very well be taken out of the sails of the insurgency. The young men who were fighting the occupiers might be too busy establishing the power grid or building a YMCA to pick up a gun and shoot at our troops as they leave.
And if its not, or if a timetable doesn't decrease violence in the first place, that only validates withdrawl. If our government expressly tells the Iraqis that we're not staying, we just want to help them get on their feet, and they still want us out, no amount of "surging" is ever, EVER going to improve the situation.
"Waiting us out" is just what we need right now. "The Summer of Blood" sounds like a pretty rotten strategy to me. Just accepting those losses in the hope, against all logic and history, that THIS time will be different, if only there were MORE blood and carnage, is the absolute height of vanity and stupidity.