Thursday, December 10, 2009

How's that Surge Working Bub?

In 2007, George W Bush authorized the the deployment of more than 20,000 soldiers into Iraq, five additional brigades, and sent the majority of them into Baghdad. It was called "the surge" and was meant, at least as far as the public was concerned, to provide the time and conditions conducive to reconciliation among political and ethnic factions. Considerable discussion was made by American politicians during the 2008 Presidential election about the merits of the surge strategy and the failing Iraq War. President Obama, who as a candidate vigorously opposed the surge, now takes a less explicitly oppositional stance to it as he continues with his predecessor's failed polices of throwing good money after bad decisions. As an example, according to the New York Times,
A series of car bombs on Tuesday ripped through Baghdad in Iraq's deadliest attack in six weeks, a brutal reminder of the threat still posed by an insurgency that has killed thousands since the 2003 U.S. invasion. Health Ministry officials said 77 people died, but police sources put the figure higher at 112.

The attacks came hours before the government announced March 7 as the date for the parliamentary election, ending weeks of political bickering that had delayed the vote from mid-January and could have complicated U.S. military withdrawal plans.
While the American public gleefully supports their Nobel Peace Prize winning Commander-in-Chief in his own attempt to execute a "Dubya-esque Surge" in Afghanistan (with an additional 30,000 troops), the Iraqi situation continues to be problematic, with persistent bombings, mass causalities, and a non-functioning federal state that is incapable of independently creating the conditions necessary for American soldiers to leave at any substantial level.

No comments:

Post a Comment