By Brendan O’Reilly

The planned troop surge into Iraq of 21,500 soldiers and Marines may just be what the war needs. Or maybe not. There are a few voices out there supporting the surge, and, reluctantly, I am one of them.

I support it with a twinge of guilt and a plethora of uncertainty. It is easy for me to agree with the plan to send more troops, because either way, I will be spending the semester at Hofstra. But for others my age, the surge may mean their unit is deployed early or their tour of duty extended.

And if the surge fails in the mission of securing Baghdad, then what was the point? I have had the feeling that 21,500 troops is not enough to make a difference in the war, but then I saw this in The New York Times: (“General Parries Senate Attacks on Iraq Record” Feb. 2) “Gen. George W. Casey Jr. said that Baghdad could be stabilized with far fewer additional troops than President Bush is sending.”

I found that reassuring, but it’s not as if people have not been wrong before when it comes to the Iraq War.

I sincerely hope that Gen. Casey, the new Army chief of staff, is right about Baghdad, and I hope the surge will do the same for the rest of Iraq.

I am a firm supporter of the Powell Doctrine, which states that if America wants to intervene militarily in another country, then the military should send an overwhelming force or none at all. Half of the Iraq War’s problem has been Donald Rumsfeld’s “war on the cheap” plan where he sets goals that could not be accomplished with the manpower provided. The commanders on the ground should be given what they say they need, not what a paper-pusher back in the Pentagon says they can get by with.

The new defense secretary, Robert Gates, said that the U.S. might be able to draw down the number of troops in Iraq before the end of the year if certain conditions are met. The surge is meant to meet the condition of “subdued violence.” Basically, increasing the amount of troops in Iraq now will lead to less deployed troops later.

Since the 2008 presidential race has kicked off this early, politicians will be more concerned about doing what is popular rather than what is right. While popularity and righteousness do not have to be mutually exclusive, more often than not they contradict each other. Though I was against the invasion of Iraq, I am opposed to an immediate troop withdrawal. It would be bad for America and worse for the Iraqis. The Congress knows this, but they are posturing against the troop increase anyway.

Polls show that most Americans are dissatisfied with Bush’s handling of the war, but most Americans are not military strategists. If strategists believe that the increase can stop or stall sectarian violence, then they should be listened to rather than polls.

In addition to opposing the increase, some have called for an immediate troop withdrawal. The best way to end the Iraq War is not to pull out troops prematurely. The war needs to be ended by getting the job done, not by leaving the country to fall further into chaos. Leaving Iraq will bolster America’s enemies, like al Qaeda and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, who has been pushing Bush’s buttons for years now. A pull out from Iraq will serve to strengthen Ahmadinejad’s resolve to make Iran the world’s latest nuclear nation.

The possibility of being invaded by the U.S. will no longer be a deterrent for Ahmadinejad if America shows it is unwilling to sustain a prolonged occupation. While the invasion was a mistake in the first place, not following through will be a bigger mistake.

Brendan O’Reilly is a junior print journalism student. You may e-mail him at [email protected].