Mission Creep

It's an open secret that the President plans to send thousands of more troops to Iraq. Somehow, despite an election that was widely seen as the request of the people to bring our troops home, Mr. Bush has, with mad genius, moved the public debate onto the subject of whether or not we send more troops, not when we will have fewer. Call it a "surge" or call it a "bump" the President has deftly made the status quo his losing position. I prefer the term "escalation", with its suitable associations with the Vietnam quagmire.

The alleged purpose of these additional troops would be to impose security in Baghdad, giving the fledgling Iraqi government time to stabilize. Because, as everyone knows, our mission in Iraq has always been to establish a stable democracy that can defend itself.

Except, of course, it wasn't. Now that we're on the verge of sending even more, let's remember why our troops were supposedly sent in the first place:

Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, millions of Americans can recall a time when leaders from both parties set this country on a mission of regime change in Vietnam. Fifty thousand Americans died. The regime is still there in Hanoi, and it hasn't harmed or threatened a single American in the 30 years since the war ended. What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: That's a great question. Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. (emphasis mine) And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change. I'm confident we'll be able to achieve that objective, in a way that minimizes the loss of life. No doubt there's risks in any military operation; I know that. But it's very clear what we intend to do. And our mission won't change. Our mission is precisely what I just stated. We have got a plan that will achieve that mission, should we need to send forces in. (March 6, 2003)

Frankly, after seeing the execution of Saddam turned into a Shiite militia lynching, and watching the rapidly changing stories and finger-pointing among the governmental officials involved, I have to say that it'll take a lot more than security on the streets of Baghdad to make that government stable, even if 20,000 more US soldiers could effect that miraculous feat. Which is probably why establishing a stable democracy wasn't why the American people, through their representatives in Congress, agreed to go there in the first place.