A reader writes:
If a European superpower had invaded the United States after the first battle of Bull Run, determined to save us from our own Civil War, what could the superpower have done? How would Americans of the North and South have responded? If we can’t answer those questions satisfactorily even with the benefit of 160 years of hindsight and a clear understanding of our own history and culture, I see no chance – none – that we can make it up as we go along in Iraq.
Chuck Hagel and others are correct: there is no military solution to Iraq. At the most basic level we can’t even identify an "enemy" against whom the fresh troops wold be engaged. The lure of adding more troops is twofold: it is the simplest option available to us, at least in the short term; and it offers those who supported the invasion in 2003 the hope of being vindicated in some way. The drawback is that, like everything we have done in Iraq, it has no basis in reality. The ISG report is a good starting point for tugging the American government back to a reality-based view of the world. Let’s not go backward.
Another reader grinds the point home:
You wrote:
"He needs to embrace much of Baker-Hamilton and add more than 50,000 and probably closer to 75,000 new troops into the theater – in the next three or four months."
Madness. Shinseki said it would take 500,000 troops to do what you and McCain want to do. Nothing has changed since he said that. (Actually, things have changed: more troops might be needed now than were needed three years ago). 75,000 would bring us to less than half that total. Unless the U.S. wants to re-invade Iraq with a grand coalition and half a million men, it should leave. All the evidence is in. Unless we are prepared to follow the original, accurate recommendation, then we should bite the bullet and get out.
I see no other viable option at this point. Our goal must be to take measures to save those few Iraqis who can be saved.
(Photo: Mohammed Ameen/Reuters.)
The Dish 