Surge in Diplomacy

Finally! An article about the surge. (Sorry how long it took.)

Courtesy Boston Globe

Take a look at this comparison of Bush’s plan and the Iraq Study Group’s report. Analyze it. Don’t over analyze it. What do you notice? Most of Bush’s plan does NOT do what the Study Group recommends. Bush plans an increase in troops in Iraq. The report says “We do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence.” Bush didn’t propose direct talks with Iran or Syria. The report says a “new diplomatic offensive … should include every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq’s neighbors—Iran and Syria among them.”

This doesn’t mean a surge is the wrong thing to do. The Iraq Study Group is not God, and the Iraq Study Group Report the Bible/Quran/Torah/etc. The report says don’t withdraw right away, or stay the course, or increase the number of troops, or divide the country into different regions. It doesn’t say what to do with the troops right now. It says staying the course is unacceptable, but what is supposed to be done militarily? It doesn’t say.

The level of troops should remain the same. The diplomacy and what the troops are doing is what should be done differently. Valiant coalition forces should play a supporting role to the Iraqi army and police, and should help rebuild communities in Iraq, unlike what former Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld believed. President Bush should begin talks with Iran, Syria, and other Middle Eastern countries. Diplomacy is where the Iraq Study Group’s report should be referenced.

For now, with the surge already beginning, we’ll just have to be optimistic and hopeful. But diplomatic action can still be taken. It needs to be taken.