What Next
So, another year's anniversary in Iraq approaches, and, after all the "Study Group's" work, what we have is an increase, an escalation, another 20,000 troops sent into harm's way, and where is this all coming from, let alone where's it supposed to get us? Speculation has it that the so-called surge is at the behest of the Iraqi government, perhaps seeking to at least get Bahgdad under control, and that may be, since it's pretty clearly not the Baker group's consensus or the Pentagon's or anything like the conventional wisdom, if anyone takes that seriously. Maybe Bush is making it up himself, and that's likely, too, since that's pretty much how we got into this predicament in the first place: he's the decider, remember? I caught David Brooks on the SBS broadcast of the News Hour, and he's doing the usual Republican song-and-dance: it's all well and good to be critical, but until somebody else (a Democratic candidate for the 2008 Presidential election) actually proposes a policy, there's nothing else to do than keep on doin'. Bull. Bush and his cronies and handlers and corporate masters got us into this neo-Vietnam quagmire, so it's up to them, to him, the decider, to get us out, to fix this and move on. Instead, he's got the new Secretary of State, the death's head, Condoleeza Rice, proposing an escalation against Syria and Iran. How thoroughly reminiscent of the 70's does Bush propose to go? It's Laos and Cambodia all over again, although at least this time, it isn't Iraq using extra-national territory, but actual state players interferring in the war, crossing borders themselves. How Bush can keep this from playing out into Road Warrior scenarios, with general Middle East conflict becoming global conflagation, has never yet been articulated. Of course, articulation isn't exactly this President's strong suit, is it? It's time to go. Get out of Iraq.