Nearing the escalation point in Iraq

For awhile now, there has been a growing movement to significantly increase the numbers of troops in Iraq. This call has come from several quarters on the right, John McCain and William Kristol most notably.

Maybe it's just an impression, but over the last month, this "escalate to win" argument seems to be gaining more presence. As the rapidly deteriorating conditions in Iraq become ever more apparent, as well as the complete failure of the current "strategy," an increasing call will come out for a radical shift in tactics, and, at least in the public debate, the options will be isolated down to the polar, easily debatably "get in or get out."

Leaving aside the military impracticality of an escalation with so many of our units rated not combat ready, there is no real basis to believe that the addition of more force will significantly alter the larger situation.

Violence certainly exacerbates the political problems fracturing the Maliki government, but the underlying causes of those fractures is more directly related to the complete overturning of the previous social order. The political strife comes from the reallocation of resources and power and the reshaping of sectarian roles.

The footprint of US control, the ground on which our soldiers are standing, would certainly increase, and a let up in some of the violence would offer a brief window (not enough time to cleanse and retrain the Iraqi Security Forces,) but the underlying problems will still be there, festering.

So, keep an eye out for the "escalate to win" argument. With Kissinger haunting the White House halls speaking of "victory being the only meaningful exit strategy," I have a feeling it is soon going to move into the limelight.

(I have nothing concrete to back this post except a creeping feeling that soon this decision will be made if it has not already.)