I've never served in an armed service, nor have I studied anything significant about battle strategy or how armed conflict affects political realities. However, no moderately informed American is totally clueless about what the media and our elected officials of all stripes have been saying about what's going on over there.
Last night, President Bush officially announced his decision to increase the number of troops in Iraq by 21,500 -- mostly in Baghdad. And many people are criticizing the decision saying that it won't improve the situation. I wonder, however, whether it means that we need those additional troops just to stay put -- to not cede territory or strategic positions -- and that it reflects the realization that the American public wouldn't countenance a large-scale escalation of troops. My question is whether these are the right troops. As a taxpayer, I'd rather pay more for more-effective deployments -- perhaps better spies or infiltrators into the most dangerous insurgencies -- that will achieve our goals.
The president said that 2007 will be bloody, suggesting (at least to me) that it might be even bloodier than 2006 was. He's probably right. I just hope we're safer at home as a result. I don't know that we are.
No comments:
Post a Comment