Latest disastrous plan: More GIs to Iraq

ANDREW GREELEY

_Many of the wise people in
this country who supported
the Iraq war at the begin-
ning now contend that the
answer to the problem is to
send more troops to Iraq. Sen. John
McCain says that 20,000 more
should be enough. Some of the mili-
tary "experts" on television are hint-
ing that 100,000 more will do the job.
Rumors are being leaked from the
Iraq Study Group established to
shape "new strategy" that they will
recommend more troops, too. The
New York Times editorial page rec-
ommends more troops temporarily
in Baghdad.
One begins to wonder who won
the election and whether McCain
plans to seek the presidency two
years hence with the blood of more
American men and women, to say
nothing of Iraqi women and children,
on his hands. One has to ask all these
wise people how they know that
more troops will prevent Iraqis from
killing one another or merely provide
more targets for snipers and road-
side bombers.
What serious neutral expert could
possibly predict that more troops will solve the problem? Does not all
the literature on guerrilla war sug-
gest that traditional military force,
no matter how large, cannot cope
with dedicated shadow warriors?
There were a half million Americans
in Vietnam and they could not end
the war. Gen. Earle "Bus" Wheeler
asked for 200,000 more troops with-
out any guarantee that they could
find the light at the end of the tunnel.
Lyndon Johnson finally said "no" and
in effect resigned from the presi-
dency.
Is McCain prepared to stake his
reputation for "experience" in mat-
ters military on the promise that
20,000 more American targets
would win the war? Is the new secre-
tary of defense (a member of the Iraq
Study Group) willing to risk becom-
ing a new scapegoat for more failure
and more death in Iraq?
What reason is there to think that
there is more that the United States
government can do to "win" the Iraq
war? Or to retreat from it with its
dignity not in tatters? Or to provide
some cover for the president's soiled
legacy?
The only strategy that makes
sense is that of Ronald Reagan when
suicide bombers blew up a Marine
barracks in Lebanon. He promptly
removed the Marines and took full
responsibility for the disaster. That's
what brave and honorable men do
when they have produced a fiasco.
They don't worry about American
credibility or honor. They don't talk
about sending in more troops. They
"cut and run," taking full responsibil- ity for their mistakes. They don't ask
more Americans to risk senseless
deaths so that their leaders can try
one last foolish attempt to save face.
The war is lost. It was lost before it
began. The majority of the American
electorate knows that. I daresay the
majority of the Iraq Study Group
also knows that. Some of them prob-
ably know that the only way George
W. Bush can emerge with any honor
from a terrible blunder that is finally
his responsibility is to imitate Rea-
gan (and John Kennedy after the Bay
of Pigs or Lyndon Johnson after the
Tet Offensive).
There was a sign on the Oval Of-
fice desk of Harry Truman when he
was president that said, "The buck
stops here." It hasn't stopped there
for the last six years. Is there any
chance that President Bush will
abandon his conviction that he is
God's agent and make a brave and
honorable decision to withdraw from
the Big Muddy into which he has led
this nation? On the basis of his words
after the election, there seems very
little likelihood of that.
Might the Iraq Study Group,
stuffed as it is by Bush family retain-
ers, have the courage to recommend
such a decision? How can they?
Only the president can salvage his
own honor. Only he can save some of
his legacy. Only he can free the Re-
publican Party from the taint of Iraq.
Those of us who have opposed the
war from the beginning because it
clearly could not be won (and for
other reasons, too) ought to pray that
God can touch his hardened heart.