Go Big, Go Long, or Go Home

There's been a new sloganization of the bushco.'s war of choice in Iraq, and it's even more repulsive than "stay the course" and "cut and run" . Now we have "go big, go long, or go home". This is the slogan that insiders have come away from the Pentagon with.

Go Big. The idea is that we send in tens of thousands of additional soldiers in to stop the Growing violence, and take control of at least the capital which we shocked and awed almost 4 years ago. More soldiers are already going in to Baghdad via the "stop loss" program that will keep soldiers on after they've served their year in. Now it may be true that if we went in with an overwhelming ground force of 200,000+ we may have squashed this violence before it had time to ferment. Changing the leadership while maintaining the existing Iraqi army may have also helped. We can not go back in time. This war has not been executed properly nor was it planned for adequately. It may be too late for an additional 20, 000 or so to make any real change in the violence that has grown in strength and precision over the past four years.

Go Long. The idea is that we stay there, as a major force, for the next five to ten years, if not longer. With the biggest, most expensive US "embassy" being built in Baghdad, there's no doubt that there will be troops in Iraq for a long, long time. The question is what troop level will remain and will they still be standing in front and in charge of Iraqi forces. The citizens of both the United States and Iraq are already calling for the United States military to leave, what will they be saying ten years from now. Not to mention where will the troops come from and how will we continue paying for bushco.'s war of choice.

Which brings us to Go Home. First reports on the Baker-Hamilton commission's final report seem to show the Iraq Study Group suggesting a gradual troop reduction starting "as early" as next year. The democrats suggest a redeployment in the "region". Unfortunately this administration had no exit strategy for this war of choice, except for cleaning off the "sweets and flowers", and parading home under a big banner reading "mission accomplished". Colin Powell recently has said the administration needs to be realistic and call what's going on in Iraq what it is "a civil war". Whatever the terminology we use, it's bad in Iraq, and getting worse. The question is will violence escalate, remain the same or worsen if we leave in major numbers. Frustrated Iraqis have been waiting for steady electricity, clean water, and jobs for the four years since bushco. invaded, defeating a defiant WMD-less dictator and leaving chaos for Iraqis to figure out. The president demanding a plan from maliki to end the sectarian violence seems a little like passing the buck to me. It was bush and his minions of neocons that forced and created this situation. How do we build a nation in Our image, in a region where the only nation that really comes close was appointed by the US and Europe fifty years ago? I'm glad to see that countries in the region, including Iran, Syria, and Jordan, may finally be asked to the table, despite what bush has to say about it. Iran may be the biggest winner in all of this, loosing an adversary in saddam hussein, and gaining a nation ruled by Shiites to maybe one day battle the Saudis' Sunnis for the world's oil (minus the oil Chavez, who was just re-elected by a landslide, wants to give America's poor for cheap).

The quelling of looting and lawlessness or as rumsfeld put it "stuff" in the beginning of the invasion may have instilled a little more faith than 4 years without steady power, water, sanitation, or security, which is what Iraqis have gotten so far. That and a government citizens are currently throwing rocks at. The dangerous rift forming between muqtada al-sadr and the maliki government may be a way to give maliki the cover of saying to bush that he can't push too hard for fear of his government falling apart. But even if this conspiracy theory is true, it's not a good sign for the US if two major parties in Iraq are conspiring to fool us. If it is not a political ploy, then the Shiite al sadr follower walk outs spell real trouble.

I'm not usually a big proponent of the papacy, but Our government needs to follow Pope Benedict's lead. The Pope's recent trip to Turkey, praying toward Mecca, embracing other viewpoints and trying to open the discussion should be praised. Like Senator Chuck Hagel said on "Meet the Press" Syria and Iran will "respond in their own self-interest" if brought to the table, and "it’s not in the interest of Syria or Jordan or Iran to have a failed state that would be a complete mess for the middle east." Even rumsfeld knew, claiming in a memo two days before his resignation “"Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough."” Who knows, maybe that's the same reason bolton has resigned from the UN.