Drunk with power, that is. Down in the polls across the board, and particularly it seems over his handling of the war in Iraq, which most Americans now believe is not worth the cost, Bush insists that we stay the course, and not impose an "artificial time line" for withdrawal. Both of these points are certainly understandable from a strategic point of view, but then he veers off into the zone of the unreasonable by insisting that we do not need to send more troops. He asserts that if the generals conducting the war ask for more, they will get it, but goes on to point out that an increase might cause the Iraqis to think we are there to stay. He promises that the Iraqis will eventually be trained and equipped in sufficient numbers to defend their own country. But it would seem to me the best way to accomplish this goal, in addition to securing the country, finally, and making serious headway insofar as reconstruction goes, would be by doing the very opposite of what Bush promises, maybe even doubling the troop strength in Iraq, and giving them the tools they need to do the job. Then, getting out of their way and allowing them to do it. With an increased number of troops, the job of training Iraqis can be done more quickly, and more efficiently.
Of course, the true reason for doing this is probably because Bush understand all too well that, since this is an unpopular war, the American people would like to see fewer, not more, troops in the country. If so, this would be an abrupt about face for a president who once promised not to lead by following the polls.
