WE share the reservations many Americans have about a plan to dramatically increase the number of U.S. troops in Baghdad, which President Bush is expected to propose in a nationwide address Wednesday night. While it offers a chance for success in Iraq, by no means is success guaranteed.
That said, we disagree with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others who suggest Congress might deny funding for a troop surge or impose a cap on the number of soldiers the United States can deploy to Iraq. It's unreasonable and unworthy of those purporting to be mature, national leaders.
The Iraq mission has been disappointing. But we doubt many Americans think things will improve with a war-by-committee approach managed by Congress' 535 members. The president is the commander in chief and must have latitude to make military decisions, based on sound advice, unencumbered by congressional micromanaging.
We're concerned newly ascendant Democrats offer little on Iraq other than withdrawal — either immediate or over a few months. In that context the expected Bush proposal at least is a strategy to stabilize Iraq, which clearly would be best for the U.S. and its allies.
Surging up to 20,000 new troops into Baghdad — to protect the citizenry, root out militias and death squads and to allow for economic development — is a plausible strategy to change the current, unacceptable, status quo.
Yet the plan's risks are great. Without a specific mission and workable tactics, it might accomplish little other than getting more Americans killed. It might cause more Iraqi dependence on U.S. forces. Our troops could get caught in sectarian crossfire.
But we're also concerned about U.S. failure in Iraq, which would leave the country to extremists, including al-Qaida, endangering America for decades to come.
So we're eager to hear President Bush's plan. He has much convincing to do, with this in his favor: Unlike most Democrats, the president still is focused on success in Iraq.
