I've been a nay-sayer here about the war recently. I have found it increasingly difficult to have much faith in the president's competence in prosecuting the war. I still believe we are on the threshold of taking a side in an ancient religious feud. Let's hope not.
I would at least like to upgrade my negative position to 'guardedly skeptical'. I was reminded this morning that my armchair viewpoint is spun from a digital tower. There are people whose experience on the ground in Iraq trumps the prognostications I dream up on the Blogosphere.
Here's the views from some soldiers on the ground in Iraq. In this article at least, they're more optimistic that the fresh troops being deployed will be a positive development.
I hope they're right. And I hope they can do their work well and come home, in spite of the politics at home. And in spite of my skepticism. Read on:
U.S. troops: Fresh faces must be used correctly
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A few hours after President Bush announced more than 20,000 additional troops would deploy to Iraq, U.S. Army Sgt. Michael Casper was doing inventory with his soldiers.
Like most soldiers here, Casper did not catch Bush's speech, but he knew the basics: More troops are on the way.
"It's trying something new, and if it works, it works; and if not, we will have to find something else," he said.
Staff Sgt. Roy Starbeck also didn't hear Bush's remarks, but he did hear some of the dissenting reaction from politicians and others -- and it irked him to no end.
"It's just ... really just aggravating," he said, shrugging his shoulders. "People saying that they don't support the war because they don't like the president or saying they don't support the war because they are Democrats or saying they support the war because they are Republicans.
"None of them are taking the time or energy to find out what is actually going on over here."
Most of the soldiers who spoke with CNN said they believe that if the fresh troops are used in the right way, the increase could be a significant help. But these men have no say in policy.
In the words of one soldier, "I am just a little fish."
Starbeck said he believes that Bush "did a pretty good job of owning up to what is going on over here."
That sentiment -- that Americans don't fully understand what's going on in Iraq -- is one that resonates among troops.
A lot of them said they feel that those who make the decisions and the American people don't have a clue what they --- the soldiers, Marines and other forces --- are going through. And dealing with that is not easy...
Based on their experiences fighting in Baghdad, troops who talked with CNN said they feel that more troops would be best used alongside Iraqi security forces. Even in areas that already have been handed over to Iraqi control, the Americans still find themselves coaching and mentoring the Iraqis down to the last detail.
The Iraqi troops also have told CNN they want the American firepower on their side because it bolsters their confidence.
In addition, U.S. soldiers have said they have noticed that when they are present in force, the sectarian violence tends to decrease.
"We would drive right down the Sunni-Shia fault line when we heard the gunfight going on and that would calm things down," Staff Sgt. Daniel Beard told us out on patrol.
His platoon commander, Charles Moffit, said he thinks the increased troops will help.
"We can only be in so many places at one time. ... If we have more soldiers here, we can be more places at one time."
Many of the soldiers here are on their second -- if not third or fourth -- deployments and have a solid grasp on the countless challenges they face.
They know that military power alone is not going to win the fight. And they also know that while, as many of them said, the plans often sound great on paper, it translates differently on the streets of Baghdad.
"I think it's a double-edged sword," Army Sgt. Jason Dooley said, peering over the shoulder of an American sniper about halfway into Tuesday's 10-hour gunbattle for Haifa Street.
"Increasing troops could show more force, could incite the insurgents or get them to back off. You never really know. They do what they want to do -- that's what makes it so hard."
"Increasing troops could show more force, could incite the insurgents or get them to back off. You never really know. They do what they want to do -- that's what makes it so hard."
Exactly.
The great Victor Davis Hanson has something to say along these lines too. Ultimately his view holds that "it" is far less about numerical strength than the willingness to hold 'em by the nose and kick 'em in the ass as George Patton is oft remembered to have said.
And that's the point isn't it?
To give the politically nearly-suicidal mandate to our Generals and troops to escallate as necessary until the opposition is waxed a la Somalia. Suicidal because the whole of the Conservative Party (intentionally decoupled from the Republicans) has listened to the Chimpander-in-Chief, has listened to the outrageously yeller Mainstream Media, and is probably left remembering that there were no WMDs, there were no alQ's in Iraq, Binnie wasn't in the particular fox-hole where he was supposed to be, an more.
But none-the-less, I believe that there really is no policy that makes more sense than to guardedly give escalatory response authority to the Department of War (which is what it really should be called), so that they can escalate the skirmishes with the local Mujahadin into running battles. For no matter how much latitude the Prez gives the Mil, I'm pretty sure we'll still act with consideration and civilized intent in most situations.
Am I positive?
Not a whit. But what now remains to be seen is whether behind the scenes, the marvelously effective ousting of the Somali "Islamic Courts" guerilla militia, is going to have a catalytic effect in our main force in Iraq and Afghanistan.
At least one encouraging sign is that Negroponte took on Pakistan as being the likely safe-harbor for Binnie.
We'll see.