President Bush recently announced his strategy to deploy more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq. The majority will be stationed in Baghdad, aiding in the effort to help squelch the insurgent violence and guerrilla warfare that have consumed parts of the capital city.
Even before Bush's proposal was officially presented to the public, some Democrats spoke out against it and many have moved to counter the so-called "surge." Some Republicans have also expressed dismay, most notably Sen. Chuck Hagel, who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee.
Yet, it is a politically unwise move for politicians, especially the Democrats, to withhold support for the surge. Why? If it works - and it stands a sound chance of doing so - those on that side of the fence have been on the wrong side of a victorious campaign, and will be seen as distrusting the tactics of military experts and lacking faith in the soldiers.
This is not to say that all politicians need to transform themselves into flag-waving, "marching-in-the-street" proponents of the plan. Ideally, the politicians who are against the surge should say something to this effect: "President Bush was elected commander in chief. He will make the final decision when it comes to military decisions. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt."
But if, due to sincere beliefs, they cannot say that, what should they do?
They shouldn't play games.
What the public needs to know is where our politicians stand on Iraq. Politicians can't have it both ways by passing a meaningless resolution, one that would not cut off the funding of the war.
The choice is either/or: Either vote to cut off funds or vote to give Bush his chance to turn it around.
Yet that is exactly what some of our politicians are doing. With regard to the resolution, they may say, "See, we are being brave. We aren't being political."
Note, however, that they aren't cutting off funds. Those who would cut off funds have the guts and consistency to back their position with real action, as do those who have the courage to support the surge.
Some politicians are not taking a serious stance on the war issue, and that is dishonorable.
It should be noted that positive results have already surfaced since the word "surge" hit the airwaves.
To begin with, there is a confirmation of a report featured in an Iraqi newspaper that al-Qaida has issued an order to begin pulling out of Baghdad. The report was confirmed to Richard Miniter, editor of Pajamas Media, who stated, "Mr. [Abu Ayyub] al-Masri's evacuation order said that remaining in Baghdad is a no-win situation for al-Qaida, because the Fallujah campaign demonstrating the Americans have learned how to prevail in house-to-house fighting."
Moreover, it appears Moqtada al-Sadr "is cooling his rhetoric and lowering his profile," even before the troops appear.
This makes sense: terrorists don't want to organize attacks when Marine platoons are patrolling the area.
In addition, the current issue of Foreign Policy magazine includes a piece by Donald Stoker, professor of strategy and policy for the U.S. Naval War College's Monterey Program, entitled "Insurgencies Rarely Win - and Iraq Won't Be Any Different (Maybe)."
The article dispelled some of the misinformation extant in the mainstream media and the public. For example, an insurgency is generally not as powerful or unbeatable as is popularly believed, nor does an insurgency usually have a long life span.
Stoker argues that the odds are in favor of the surge seeing success, but contends Iraq can still be lost if the administration does not rectify past military mistakes, properly court public opinion and establish strong security in the country.
The surge has already begun, but the public needs to see some profiles in courage in Washington.
Reach the reporter at: hilary.wade@asu.edu.
