Dec. 26, 2006
 
COMMENTARY: It’s Time to Say No
 
By John M. Crisp
Scripps Howard News Service
 
While thinking about how well a "surge" of United States troops would serve us in Iraq, I reconsidered the "Powell Doctrine of Overwhelming Force."
 
You don't have to be a military genius to appreciate this principle: Once the fighting starts, military force should be applied at a level that leaves no doubt about the outcome of the battle. This principle is associated with former army general and Secretary of State Colin Powell, but it can be traced back through former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger to 19th-century military strategist Carl von Clausewitz.
 
In fact, it's common sense: Nathan Bedford Forrest, who began the Civil War as a private with no military training and finished as a general, understood this principle instinctively, wanting always to arrive at the point of battle "fustest with the mostest."
 
But the Powell Doctrine also requires affirmative answers to eight questions before military force of any level is applied, questions like these: Do we have a clear attainable objective? Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? Do we have genuine broad international support? Is the action supported by the American people?
 
Our original incursion into Iraq satisfied almost none of Powell's eight tests for military action. In retrospect it's clear that if we had demanded scrupulous answers to these questions, we might have saved ourselves considerable grief in Iraq.
 
Does the proposed surge of troops satisfy the requirements of the Powell Doctrine? No. In fact, the proposal lacks entirely the certainty of purpose and method required for a careful, rational deployment of troops. Some have suggested that as few as 17,000 additional troops in Baghdad would turn the tide. Others call for 50,000 but recognize that that many troops aren't readily available. The Bush administration is currently considering an extra 30,000 or so troops, but no one really knows if that'sthe right number. The generals are opposed or, at best, unenthusiastic _ concerned that a surge will tax further an already overtaxed army, as well as keep the focus on a military solution, when it's clear that the solution in Iraq has to be political. Most Iraqis oppose a surge. Even some of the politicians and analysts who favor a surge of troops admit that its chances of success are a long shot.
 
In fact, a short-term increase in troop levels in Iraq at this point has more than a hint of desperation about it. Think of the gambler in Vegas who has lost everything except his bus fare home. Does he leave town, determined to frame future excursions with more prudence? Or does he gamble the last of his money on the outside chance that he can win everything back?
 
Unfortunately, much more is at stake than mere money. Congress and the American people must face an unwelcome reality: the Bush administration cannot be trusted to wield American military power in a realistic and deliberate fashion.
 
Having exhausted most of his diplomatic capital and having worked our military to near exhaustion, last week the president asked new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to explore increasing the size of our army. As they say, to the man whose only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The president is asking for a bigger hammer.
 
But there are jackhammers and sledgehammers, hammers for framing houses and hammers for fixing a car, all sorts of hammers of different sizes for different jobs. The president's record for distinguishing among types of hammers and their uses isn't a good one. If he has the troops, we have little reason to believe that he will deploy them deliberately or prudently.
 
At his Dec. 20 press conference, the president was more vague and uncertain than usual. He appears to be in over his head, deep in a desperate political and military dilemma. For him, personally, a great deal is at stake. But the surge is still a bad idea, the latest of many. Congress must rescue him, our military and our country by applying constitutional checks on the presidency and asserting its constitutional war-making powers as soon as possible. Many lives are at stake; it's time to begin to say No.
 
John M. Crisp teaches in the English Department at Del Mar College in Corpus Christi, Texas. For more news and information visit www.scrippsnews.com.