Star Tribune political writer Eric Black poses
a number of questions/issues to consider when watching President Bush give his speech on the proposed "surge" in American troops.
- What can a surge accomplish that the current 132,000 troops can't?
- Is there a timeline for getting out?
- Congressional Democrats - the majority party - have said a troop surge is a mistake. Will Bush do anything to convince or shame them into accepting his proposal?
- The Mahdi Army, causing much of the violence, is led by Muqtada al-Sadr, who also helped place Al-Maliki in the Iraqi premier's post. How will that complicate calming the city's violence?
- Will Bush redefine victory? More and more analysts seem to be saying that we can't win. But will we just lower our sights a bit?
- What benchmarks will Bush set for success? A fully democratic and peaceful Iraq? A calmer Baghdad? Five fewer attacks per month?
I'd add a few other issues:
- How will we pay for those 20,000 troops and their equipment?
- How will we account for the billions already spent (and any more proposed) for reconstruction?
- How will we pay for the rapidly increasing cost of caring for the wounded, many of whom have lost limbs or suffered significant permanent damage requiring lifelong care?
And last, but not least: how will this speech differ from the rest?
No comments:
Post a Comment