The arguments floating around the op-ed pages and seminar rooms were overwhelmingly against the idea of a surge — a mere 20,000 additional troops would not make a difference. The U.S. presence provoked violence, rather than diminishing it. The more the U.S. did, the less the Iraqis would step up to do. Iraq was in the middle of a civil war, and it was insanity to put American troops in the middle of it.
When President Bush consulted his own generals, the story was much the same. Almost every top general, including Abizaid, Schoomaker and Casey, were against the surge. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was against it, according to recent reports. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki called for a smaller U.S. presence, not a bigger one.
In these circumstances, it’s amazing that George Bush decided on the surge. And looking back, one thing is clear: Every personal trait that led Bush to make a hash of the first years of the war led him to make a successful decision when it came to this crucial call. – The Bush Paradox by DAVID BROOKS (via New York Times)
Here’s the problem with that ol’ Davie Boy. The move to the “surge” was made about 5 years too damn late. Not even to mention the multiple moving of the goal posts for the very reason of this war. This is just another rather lame attempt to justify this unconstitutional war.
Others: Commentary, Martini Revolution, GINA COBB, No More Mister Nice Blog, Daily Pundit, Bark Bark Woof Woof, Betsy’s Page, Connecting.the.Dots and The Mahablog (via Memeorandum)
Technorati Tags: Politics, Opinion, Bush, Republicians, Conservative, Neo-Conservatives, White House, Iraq War,