Escalation of Troops

Bush is going to be sending about 20,000 more troops to 'secure' Baghdad. It's fair to assume that majority of Americans especially Dems are opposed to this saying that more troops won't help the deteriorating situation in Iraq any.

I, on the other hand, am all for it but not for same reason as W. The Iraqi people didn't ask for their land to be invaded. If they were tired of having Sadaam treat them so ruthlessly, then they (Iraqis) should've gotten organized and revolted against him & toppled his government (I do realize this is easier said than done). This is what countries that were colonized did since they didn't like being ruled by foreigners, and this is what countries still do to topple rogue leaders. You start grassroot level revolts & hope they pick up enough momentum to remove the sitting dictator. E.g. Ahmad Shah Masood was the leader of the Northern Alliance, a group that was opposed to the Taliban. He was assassinated by suicide bombers posed as journalists in 2001. This is the type of organizing that Iraqis should've done if they were really tired of Sadaam's regime. It's bloody, it's risky, it doesn't always work, but if the people want it that much, they will find a way to make it happen.

Back to Iraq. Prior to the U.S. invasion, there seemed to be peace and everyone seemed to be able to do something economically to make a living, notwithstanding those that Sadaam & his sons saw fit to torture, detain & kill. I'm also sure that if you took a poll around Iraq today (not ex-patriates who've fled Iraq & can now punder from the comfort of their new countries), majority would say they hated Sadaam but they would rather the atmosphere then than what it is now. Again, if they hated it so much, THEY are the ones who should've done something about it. Not have W. impose his will on them to pay back Sadaam for what he did to his Daddy.

So, I say ramp up the troops and do everything you can to protect the Iraqi citizens from the autrocities that are taking place there. They didn't ask for this mess so the least the "coalition of the willing" can do is stay the course even if that means that more troops get killed. But W. is right about one thing, retreating cannot be an option. The minute the U.S. troops leave, the insurgent groups will take over the country and all hell will and shall break lose.

Doesn't that then mean that troop additions and not withdrawing right now is only delaying the inevitable? Coalition troops will leave eventually and since the tenuous Iraqi troops will probably run for their lives when they no longer have the coalition working with them, why delay all that? Why get more coalition troops killed? Why call up the reserve and national guard? Because we just don't know. Maybe the additional troops will be successful in snuffing out insurgents & leave a stable Iraqi government & army behind that will be able to protect its own citizens. Possible but highly unlikely. Time will tell.

Obviously, I make this argument because I don't have a son/daughter in Iraq & don't know anybody who does. I figure the same goes for W. This war itself would probably have not taken place if Jen & Barbs were enlisted in the military.