Bush is not "doubling down" in Iraq.
In mid-December, the LA Times ran a story (reg required) regarding the idea of a troop 'surge' in Iraq, referring to the military plan as a "double down" strategy.
As President Bush weighs new policy options for Iraq, strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to "double down" in the country with a substantial buildup in American troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive against Muqtada Sadr, the radical Shiite leader impeding development of the Iraqi government.This term has taken on a life on it's own, and has appeared in countless news pieces and media stories. Some politicians have adopted the phrase as well, and have been using it in floor speeches and comments to the press. And as we know now, this was the strategy that Bush chose.
But I have a problem with the improper use of the term. When you "double down" in blackjack, you double your bet because the odds are favorable, and you are attempting to maximize your win. Most of the time, this is done when the dealer is at their weakest. That's doesn't characterize the situation in Iraq at all.
First, this gambling metaphor refers to our troops as 'bankroll' and equates how many lives we put at risk with how much money you are willing to gamble. But let's assume one is callous enough to make such a metaphor.
What this troop surge is doing is putting MORE at risk in an attempt to make up for what has already been lost. Gamblers refer to this as "chasing your losses." And any experienced gambler will tell you that chasing your losses in the quickest way to increase your losses exponentionally. In fact, once you start to get emotional, rather than rational, about your betting is exactly when you should leave the table altogether.
Sadly, chasing our losses in Iraq will only lead to more casualties and a weakened foreign policy. It's time to accept the losses, walk away from the table, and stop gambling altogether.

