A surge of uncertainty

It appears the new way forward for our Iraq policy is to create a surge of confusion among the various players who have any say. The White House is pitching its "new" surge strategy but from my armchair it looks like the same old "stay the course" dressed up in a new phrase. I mean wasn't Operation Forward Together -- you remember, the infusion of troops last summer -- supposed to the big surge that was going to quell the violence in Baghdad and change everything? As the Pentagon finally got around to announcing, the violence got much worse.

Now Bush is talking about sending in less troops in this second "surge" and expecting some different result? Why? Because he gave it a new name? And for all the rhetoric of the recent pre-midterm past, when announcing a timetable for withdrawal was being painted by the White House as handing the "terrorists" the blueprint to our strategy, why is it okay to set a surge timetable? It's all such a painfully transparent and pathetic attempt to avoid the reality that Iraq is lost, by any military measure.

Meanwhile, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the ISG, and various other learned study groups can only come to a consensus about one thing. What we're doing isn't working. Rice isn't going to say anything until George tells her what to say. It reminds me of the Tower of Babel. Everybody's talking but nobody understands each other.

Meanwhile, it's little wonder Bush doesn't want to announce his plans. It's clear to me that he doesn't have any beyond wanting to stay on the disaster course he's plotted, until he leaves office, so somebody else can take the blame when it finally falls apart altogether.