In an editorial today, " STRAIGHT TALK ON THE ARMY." the editors of the New York Post write:
Sen. John McCain of Arizona wants more troops. Both in Iraq - and for the Army and Marine Corps generally. McCain is poised for a presidential bid in '08, so there's a bit of political risk to his proposal. But his views on Iraq have long clashed with those of many in the establishment - Democrats, the mainstream media, even some Republicans. Yet once again he's talking honestly about the war. For all their calls for timetables, phased withdrawals and other dressed-up versions of cutting, running and surrendering, the fact is, even most Democrats know that America can't simply abandon Iraq to the terrorists. Which is why, in its prudence, the Army this month announced it's making plans to maintain at least current troop levels, about 141,000, through 2010 - just in case they're needed. And why President Bush, while stumping for fellow GOPers, has been reminding listeners that America "will not run from thugs and assassins" in Iraq. McCain - a Vietnam hero - last week called for an extra 20,000 troops in Iraq. That, he said, would mean "expanding the Army and Marine Corps by as much as 100,000 people." As we've noted, the case for beefing up military manpower (not to mention stocks of combat-ready equipment) should be more than obvious. Some units are being asked to do their third tour of combat duty in Iraq. Given the War on Terror and high levels of hostility elsewhere in the world, more troops may be needed beyond Iraq - though a good way to avoid that necessity would be to have a visible and overwhelming number set to pounce, subject to need. McCain deserves praise not just for speaking so candidly about the realities in Iraq - but for doing so while so many others are making the exact opposite pitch, even if only for political gain on the eve of an election. It can't be said often enough: The stakes in Iraq are huge. And given the range of possible threats elsewhere, America needs to be prepared. Adults - like McCain - put those needs above partisan politics. Too bad more pols don't do likewise.
The senator is right, of course. If the objective is to restore and maintain some order in Baghdad in the next few months, many more US troops will be needed. The idea that we can't wait a few more months for more Iraqi troops to come on line is a fantasy. A bigger fantasy is that large-scale "redeployments" carried out in the next few months will improve the security situation. It won't. It will get worse and greatly undermine the progress we have made with some Iraq Army units. Since 2003, the administration has used multiple excuses (international troops are on the way/more Iraqi troops are in the pipeline) to keep U.S. troops levels far too low given the stakes involved in a conflict the president has called the central front in the War on Terror. Failure, as the president rightly says, is not an option. Yet, for the recent security operations in the capital we dispatched only about 6,000 US troops - and many of these troops were drawn from the volatile Anbar province. As the New York Post's John Podhoretz wrote the other day:
The president should be imposing timetables on his own generals and Pentagon. As in, "We need to win this thing. We need to break the backs of the bad guys in a big and decisive way. I want to know how we're going to do this in six months." The president used to say that he disdained "smallball" - referring to baseball strategy that aims to win by ekeing out singles and stealing bases and getting a run here and there. But in terms of waging war in Iraq, he's been playing "smallball." When he says, "We're adjusting tactics all the time," he's playing smallball. When the military moves 6,000 men into Baghdad for a few weeks, that's smallball.
If Iraq collapses, it won't just be the Iraqis' problem. We will have to live with the consequences. Since 2003, Sen. McCain has been calling for more US troops in Iraq to help stem the deteriorating security environment. Too bad it wasn't done back then when it could have done the most good.