Troop Surge
If you play poker, and even if you do not, you are probably familiar with the term "all-in." It is a word to describe the bet on which a particular player stakes his entire pile of chips. "I'm all-in," or "Joe is all-in," one might say. This maneuver is done out of confidence in one's hand, that it will surely beat all the others at the table, or it is done as a last hope. In the latter instance, it is done when one has few chips left to play, and as a bluff to scare off other players into thinking that one's cards are good, when they actually are not, in the hope that one can start winning some money. This may not have been President Bush's "all-in," but if it was not, then he's one hand away.
Hopefully this increase in troops will accomplish its objective. If it does not, it will be seen as one of the final blunders in a tragic train of blunders.
The Bush administration, particularly former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, has long been criticized for not sending enough troops into Iraq in the first place. This may be Bush's attempt to make up for that error, if in fact it was one. In that sense, the move to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq could be seen as a positive move. At least it reflects some willingness to evolve, and possibly even to take outside advice, two areas in which this administration has been the worst in history.
However, this is not chess, or even football. These are human lives, be they American or Iraqi, that are being played with and lost in the balance. The notion that the situation in Iraq can be calmed now, after four years, with the addition of another five brigades, does not make sense. Granted, this writer is not in the military and acknowledges complete ignorance to military maneuvers and techniques, however, he does read the newspaper and watch the news on T.V. It has been suggested that Bush should have sent double the amount of troops, or even more. As it is, Bush is making an extremely unpopular and risky move, and not even doing it strongly. If something is worth doing, then it is worth doing right. Apparently the Bush team thought it was worth increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, but not worth sending enough to ensure they would make a difference.
Bush may have just cost himself whatever support he has left, but brace yourselves, because he is not finished. If his reign (and it has been a reign) over this country runs true to course, he has one colossal blunder left in him. Talk has started to swirl again about the possibility of invading Iran or Syria. While that situation is probably not likely, I would not put it past this President as his final, and possibly catastrophic, "all-in."
Hopefully this increase in troops will accomplish its objective. If it does not, it will be seen as one of the final blunders in a tragic train of blunders.
The Bush administration, particularly former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, has long been criticized for not sending enough troops into Iraq in the first place. This may be Bush's attempt to make up for that error, if in fact it was one. In that sense, the move to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq could be seen as a positive move. At least it reflects some willingness to evolve, and possibly even to take outside advice, two areas in which this administration has been the worst in history.
However, this is not chess, or even football. These are human lives, be they American or Iraqi, that are being played with and lost in the balance. The notion that the situation in Iraq can be calmed now, after four years, with the addition of another five brigades, does not make sense. Granted, this writer is not in the military and acknowledges complete ignorance to military maneuvers and techniques, however, he does read the newspaper and watch the news on T.V. It has been suggested that Bush should have sent double the amount of troops, or even more. As it is, Bush is making an extremely unpopular and risky move, and not even doing it strongly. If something is worth doing, then it is worth doing right. Apparently the Bush team thought it was worth increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, but not worth sending enough to ensure they would make a difference.
Bush may have just cost himself whatever support he has left, but brace yourselves, because he is not finished. If his reign (and it has been a reign) over this country runs true to course, he has one colossal blunder left in him. Talk has started to swirl again about the possibility of invading Iran or Syria. While that situation is probably not likely, I would not put it past this President as his final, and possibly catastrophic, "all-in."
Comments