State of the Onion

He's done it again. Luckily, I'll never have to say that again.

George W. Bush's State of the Union address brought bittersweet feelings into the hearts and homes of millions Americans, myself included. Bitter because of the mess this man has made of the economy, the homefront, and quite frankly, the Middle East. Sweet because unless some unholy amendment is illegally chained to the Constitution, he can't run for a third term. But to hear him speak last night (or on any occassion, for that matter) you would think that not only are things going great at home and abroad, but that he's the one that made it that way.

The economy, health care, AIDS, and energy aside, I want to focus in on one thing that has been particularly disturbing to me for several months now. Once again, as he has done many times before, President Bush boasted the improved status of Iraq as a result of the controversial troop surge. Republicans and loyal Bushists won't stop citing its success. On the other side of the aisle, Democrats won't stop denying it. Let me bridge this gap and bring one and all into the warming light of reality.

According to its original designs and main objective, the troop surge HAS NOT worked. Now don't get all crazy on me. Allow me to explain such a bold assertion. Bush, Patreaus and the whole Executive gang clearly stated that the primary goal of the surge was to create a diplomatic environment for the strengthening of the Iraqi government, and ultimately political progress.

So far, this we have not seen. This is not to say that progress has been absent from the entire operation. Only mindless, radical leftists would be so ignorant to say so. No, there has been much progress as a result of the surge, but it has been primarily militarily- and casualty-based.

Now I don't want to come off sounding like a heartless jerk here, so do not confuse my words to think that this kind of progress is not important. It is SO important. The decline of butchery and bloodshed in the world would no doubt be my greatest wish. But the truth is (or at least I hope it is), American troops cannot stay in Iraq forever. We cannot keep the peace forever. What concerns me is what will happen after we leave. Can anyone say with confidence that this fragile peace will remain intact without our force and influence a stone's throw away? Of course not. That is why diplomacy and political solutions are essential to a "successful Iraq". Anythings else will only temporarily pacify the chaos.

I'm sure Mr. Bush has heard this argument before, and although I would hope that his sense of reason and logic would lead him to unequivocally agree, I fear that his trademark arrogance will keep him in the comfort of his ignorance and naivety. I just hope we, whether Republican or Democrat, will see the truth and face it, rather than justify our odds against it.