Bush's Speech...

It seems every time the President gives a speech, I have the same conversation in class. First, someone says something about how the President has really said something new, and how everyone who disagrees with what he says are still arguing the merits of going to war. Then, he or she will point out that the President's plan will work this time if only supported by the liberals. After that, I normally point out that the last few "plans" haven't worked, and not because of lack of support, but because they were never really "plans" to begin with (ie. Strategy for Victory given last year at the Naval Academy).

This time was no surprise. I will say I went into the speech really hoping for something...maybe it's because I'm desperate for an end, or a light at the end of the tunnel, or maybe it's because my level of hope has fallen so low I felt the need to just pretend for an hour. I am not a military planner, nor do I have any more insight into things than Joe Schmoe on the street...but a 20k troop increase to 340k that are already there is only a 5.8% increase. I don't really see how 5.8% is going to do a whole lot to improve the situation...not to mention it will only work when coupled with an increase in standing Iraqi Brigades and Police Forces, which are nearly non-exist ant. The idea of upping troop rotations is disturbing for a lot of reasons, not the least of which means more soldiers will have to deploy, again, and more soldiers will die.

I'm in a class called National Security Seminar and we are reading The Art of War and On War, two books I've often heard quoted, but rarely desired to read. I came upon a few good quotes in my first go at The Art of War, one of which stood out this morning:

Attack by Fire
And therefore it is said that enlightened rulers deliberate upon the plans, and good generals execute them.

If not in the interests of the state, do not act. If you cannot succeed, do not sue troops. If you are not in danger, do not fight.

A sovereign cannot raise an army because he is enraged, nor can a general fight because he is resentful. For while an angered man may again be happy, and a resentful man again be pleased, a state that has perished cannot be restored, nor can the dead be brought back to life.

Therefore, the enlightened rules is prudent and the good general is warned against rash action. Thus the state is kept secure and the army preserved.

I feel the need to again point out, that I am not a pacifist, nor am I someone who feels an immediate troop pull out will work. I only say again that I am confused, and that the proffered 'solutions' all seem to offer little to solve anything. Maybe it is possible we've already lost, or that the task at hand is too great for us to solve...or maybe, God willing, this will work.

CHANGE
I was off by half on the number of troops in Iraq. After Tim's comment, I double checked and realized I went with a poor number. This changes, by a small margin, the amount of confidence I have in the plan. Counting only US troops, it's 120k there now, which means a much higher percentage "surge"...add to that the number of civilian security (mostly prior service military) and the number goes up by a bit.