Transcript:

In the days ahead a critical decision will be made in our nations Iraq War policy. This decision is expected by many to be an increase in America’s presence on the ground in Iraq. Whitehouse officials are privately telling reporters that this military increase will only be around 20,000 more troops and no more then 30,000.

But to what end does this means address?

President Bush, not being the most articulate of fellows, has never clearly defined a goal in the Iraq War. A careful (or even careless) study of America’s past wars shows that every single one had an end. In Vietnam and Korea the means to get there was insufficient. In the First Gulf War the end was allowed to remain. And now today in this the Second Gulf War what is the end? And above all else… prove it.

What I mean to say is that if our end is to provide a secure Iraq then what “exactly” have we done to achieve that? I would surmise an argument to be that we sent troops there to route out the insurgents. To me that’s like saying you peeled and orange. But the question is did you eat it? Today Iraq stands less “secure” then it did when Saddam was in power.

So, either our end is not to have a secure Iraq or we just haven’t met such an end (therein our means being incorrect). Let us examine the later, why haven’t we met such an end at this time? Now if the President and all the President’s men believe that sending more troops will make Iraq secure. Then the question is what those extra troops will do, “exactly do,” that the present soldiers haven’t already done. And that’s a pretty legitimate question that I don’t think anybody has an “intelligent answer” too.

However we can re-examine our secure Iraq “end,” if you will, and state that our end is to instead stand up and support Iraqi forces to secure Iraq for themselves. If this is the end then one should ask, what have been doing for the past 4 or so years? And how will adding 20,000 more troops achieve this end? It may in my opinion alleviate some of the pressure on the current troops on the ground in Iraq, but then again I question this own argument because if the end is just to “support” the Iraqi forces then there shouldn’t be much “pressure.”

If a teacher’s job is too ultimately support the student, in every way the teacher knows how, then ultimately the pressure on getting a good grade wrests on my shoulders. The teacher just needs to do their job. To get back to Iraq, either we aren’t doing our job or the Iraqi forces are incompetent. If we aren’t doing our job then the means to the end is the problem, however if the Iraqi forces are incompetent then the end is broken and the means might as well be non-existent.

Obviously if American citizens’ can’t even point their collective finger at the same end then something is wrong; furthermore if that isn’t ‘obvious’ you should re-evaluate the term democracy. The President in a few days will come out with a new Iraq War strategery. However what he, other politicians, and Generals don’t understand is that American’s didn’t volunteer to go and fight as some pawns in a badly set chess game. And yes it is after all an all volunteer army. They have volunteered to ultimately die, if need be, for their country and what exactly have they died for so far? To secure Iraq? To help Iraqi’s secure Iraq? To establish a functioning government in Iraq? To unite Iraq? To stop sectarian killing? To build up Iraq’s infrastructure? To start up Iraq’s economy? What exactly have they fought for? It’s easy to say they fought and died for their country and leave it be at that noble thing. But when one asks what exactly did they die fight for? One can hardly respond with securing America…