As we all returned to D.C. to start the new semester, we were greeted by President Bush's call for an escalation of the war in Iraq. Jay Leno, of all people, had the most succinct summarization of that plan: "The good news is last night President Bush finally admitted he's made mistakes in Iraq. The bad news is he's planning to make the same mistakes again." If anything, Bush has been able to temper expectations by leaving us clueless about just what to expect. First he managed to sell a war meant to make America safer and empower moderates in the Middle East, only to accomplish the opposite. Now he has opted for a strategy that effectively offers to wipe off the spit he's spewed across our face with a sharp backhanded slap. Apparently November's sweeping and decisive election results failed to take public opinion off "mute" in the White House. Pleading for sanity by top military brass has been similarly dismissed. "Every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together," General Abizaid told Senator McCain late last year. "And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no." The response of the Bush team and its dwindling apologists has been an attempt to deflect criticism by denouncing everyone else for failing to offer an alternative. First of all, Democrats have rightly made the analogy to one who drops an egg and then charges someone else to piece it back together. This is the Republican's war and ultimate responsibility rests with the president (John McCain and Joe Lieberman will also be co-defendants in the court of history). But luckily for him, Democrats have been eager to detail several plans aimed at salvaging at least some sort of regional integrity. Representative John Murtha, long a fixture of the military scene in Washington, has coupled his emotional criticism of the war with perhaps the most honest assessment of what is required. His plan is four-part: U.S. troops are immediately redeployed; a quick reaction force is established in the region; the Marines maintain an over-the-horizon presence; and we pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy. Senator Joe Biden, an accomplished foreign policy scholar himself, delivered his five-point plan last October. Recognizing the intensifying civil war as the most potent generator of violence in Iraq, he calls for a partitioning into three autonomous regions that would separate the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds under a limited central government. Senators Carl Levin and Jack Reed, heavyweights on the Armed Services Committee, introduced their own plan with steps ranging from a more focused training and logistical approach to addressing regional stability issues through an international conference. Senator Clinton, upon returning from Iraq, proposed capping the number of U.S. troops at 130,000, conditioning U.S. money to tangible progress by the Maliki government and augmenting our focus on Afghanistan to avert complete catastrophe. The breadth and detail of Democratic options are nearly enough to glaze over the most committed of policy wonks. Bush could have even sought cover from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report. The expert commission's 79 recommendations offer a comprehensive approach specifically tailored to Bush's palate. Unfortunately, the president has continued to favor slogans over substance, stubborn theatrics over solemn candor. So long as he dismisses public opinion as cavalierly as he does the thousands of lives lost for a mistake, we are condemned to suffer that painful knot of anger, awe, and frustrated sadness as we wonder just how many nations are being destroyed in this futile war.
Jacob Shelly is a sophomore in the School of Public Affairs and a liberal columnist for The Eagle.
