The Surge

The "surge" in Iraq is working according to at least one scholar. So why did Congress and the American public sentence it to the dustbin of failed ideas before it even began? (For the record, the surge reached full strength on June 15th).

Mostly, the "surge" was a public relations failure. The administration has made a lot of mistakes in Iraq. I repeat: a lot of mistakes. Americans know this. Non-Americans know this. Even Congress knows this. So when an administration looked at its failed past policies, what did it do? It trotted out an - allegedly - new one.

But the surge isn't really "new". What's new about using U.S. troops to fight insurgents, secure neighborhoods, and train Iraqi forces? That's been the modus operandi since "Mission Accomplished", as well it should be. All that's new is that there was a modest increase in troop strength reversing the previous drawdown.

What right did the administration have to introduce a new strategy? If the old strategies had failed, then they should have said so. If not, why change? Everyone instinctively recognized the surge as an exercise in public relations, and rejected it as such.

Imagine if instead the administration had come out in December and said, "We made a mistake. We removed U.S. troops from Iraq too quickly. We apologize to America and Iraq for a mistake which has cost hundreds of lives and we are moving to rectify that mistake by returning 30,000 G.I.'s to the front." This would have cost the administration some political capital in the short run, but would have begun to restore the public trust.

Instead, we have an apparently working strategy and an obviously failed administration. Iraq ultimately may pay the ultimate price for the Bush Administration's unwillingness to level with America and admit its mistakes.