There’s another word to describe the “surge” in US troops stationed in Iraq that President Bush seems likely to authorize. That word is “escalation.” I think it’s a much more accurate term. President Bush decides how many soldiers are sent to Iraq. Circumstances dictate when they get to come back.
The idea that this surge is temporary is contingent on the fact that the desired effect will be achieved. If we send 25,000 more troops to Iraq and Baghdad 2007 is more violent than Baghdad 2006, I don’t think that President Bush will go on TV and tell us that the surge strategy was a failure and that those troops are coming home. He’ll either tell us that the surge must be continued because it’s working more slowly than anticipated or that further escalation is dictated.
One proposal that’s getting lots of press recommends sending up to 50,000 more troops to Iraq for 18 to 24 months. Does that sound like a temporary surge to you? It sounds like escalation to me.
The US started this war under the pretense that it was going to be a quick liberation that would be over soon and cost us nothing, thanks to Iraqi oil revenues. Now, after almost four years of war, the same people are trying to sell a massive escalation of the conflict in the guise of a temporary surge to secure Baghdad. Don’t believe them.