Just in time, or too little, too late? (Column: 1/16/07)

I'm torn between two ways to characterize President Bush's plan to “surge” more than 20,000 additional troops into Iraq over the next several months: one is “it's about time,” the other is “too little too late.” They are variations on a theme, and the difference between them is hair-thin.

The sad reality is that this administration, and this country, has not taken this war seriously enough from the outset. Oh, certain segments of the public have, of course, especially those directly affected because they have loved ones in the armed forces. And the armed forces themselves have certainly taken it seriously. They have given the last full measure of devotion to their country, regardless of how flawed both the justification for going to war, and the execution of it, may have been.

But from the beginning, much of the administration and the country have treated the war as a sideshow. While claiming its centrality in the war against terror, the Bush administration has called for no general mobilization, no increase (until quite recently) in the size of the military, no sacrifices on the part of the citizens of this country. It has been slow is providing material support -- such as body and vehicular armor -- needed by troops in Iraq, and has consistently underestimated the number of troops needed to control the situation on the ground, once the initial military phases of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein were over.

And lacking leadership from the President, the public has been basically happy to go along. The length of this war has now exceeded that of World War Two. During World War Two, the public bought war bonds, planted victory gardens, endured rationing to make sure the troops got the first and best of everything, worked extra shifts in plants producing military materiel, and enlisted in droves. We may have yellow "support our troops" ribbons on our SUVs, but show little concrete action to back the words.

Of course, one obvious difference is that in World War Two, we were directly attacked. In the war in Iraq, we were the ones doing the attacking. So the parallels are not precise.

Nonetheless, the point is that if you're going to fight a war, you'd better darned well do it right. You'd better go in there like you mean it, and make sure you have the troops and materiel to make a success of it. General (later Secretary of State) Colin Powell, when he served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the presidency of the first George Bush, got it right in his so-called “Powell doctrine”: if you're going to fight, you go in with overwhelming force, and you make sure you've got a clear exit strategy.

The Iraq war has thus far been an abject failure on both points. That dishonors our troops and discredits the United States of America. As Commander in Chief, based on our performance in Iraq, President Bush deserves to be cited for malfeasant in office. Now, belatedly, he's trying to accomplish what should have been done in the first place. He and his advisors appear to have forgotten the old saying about do it right the first time, because it's far more difficult and expensive to come back and fix it, later.

And so, here in the eleventh hour, we're surging in more troops. And, forgive me for saying so, a pitifully small number of troops. If we were genuinely serious about bringing this war to a satisfactory conclusion, we ought to be surging in 50,000 to 100,000 more troops -- possibly even doubling the number we have there now.

Oh, that's right, I forgot: we don't have that many more troops. From the Clinton administration until very recently, we've been focusing on reducing our troop strength, because our technology is so incredible we don't need as many boots on the ground as we used to, back in the old days. Yeah, right. We've seen how well that works.

So, is the current proposed troop surge “just in the nick of time,” or “too little, too late”? I don't know. Ask me in six months. If I had a crystal ball, I'd be making oodles of money in a Washington think-tank somewhere. But I do know this: if this latest strategy doesn't work, if we're stuck in an endless meat-grinder in Iraq, or worse yet forced to withdraw with our tail between our legs, we'll be in for a world of hurt over the years and decades to come.

So we'd better get down on our knees and pray it works.