by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Jan. 7, 2007
All Rights Reserved.

ontinuing his smoke offensive, President George W. Bush prepares another set of empty promises, hoping to sell Congress on sending more troops to Iraq. In case anyone forgets, shortly after al-Qaida terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed June 8, 2006 Bush huddled with former Defense Secretary Donald M. Rumsfeld, his National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, deciding to re-deploy an additional brigade [5,000 troops] to Baghdad in July 2006. Bush commented about how “tough” the sectarian strife was in Baghdad, necessitating the boost in U.S. forces. Since then, U.S. casualties dramatically jumped, prompting former Centcom chief Gen. John P. Abizaid and Iraq commander Gen. George Casey to oppose further troop increases. Bush changed all the players but still advocates the same old strategy of adding more troops to Baghdad.

      Bush faces an uphill battle selling Congress and the American public on the idea that more money, more troops and more time will change the outcome in Iraq. If history's any guide, more troops will result in more losses to U.S. forces. With Bush's approval ratings under 30%, it's doubtful he'll change too many minds that more troops will imporove the results. “Is this a war, or is it not a war?” asked an unnamed White House official. “If it is, you have to be willing to sacrifice . . . Americans are willing to do that as long as we have a clear strategy that offers chances of success,” couching the debate in the most naïve terms. Everyone knows by now that the U.S. faces asymmetric—not conventional—warfare in Iraq. It's not a strategy to add more troops, more money and more time, the same habit that resulted in more death, more chaos and more lost tax dollars.

      Back in July, al-Maliki and Bush agreed to allow Iraq's military to take a more aggressive role in Baghdad's security. Since then, Baghdad's security deteriorated because Iraq's new military and security services, including the police, harbor more loyalty to insurgents and terrorists than the U.S. military. Bush doesn't admit the basic disloyalty of Iraq's military, making Baghdad's security next to impossible. White House and Pentagon plans to hand over security to Iraqis haven't worked because of sabotage inside Iraq's military and security services. Bush's new plan seeks to add at least one more brigade, repeating the same mistake as last July. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) signaled she wouldn't give Bush a “blank check,” yet she has little leverage—other than cutting funds—to stop the commander-in-chief from retooling his war strategy.

      Since the midyear election, White House officials haven't caught up with public opinion, seeking a realistic exit strategy. Republicans got clocked because of Bush's abysmal approval ratings and his failed Iraq policy. No patriotic American wants the U.S. to lose in Iraq or elsewhere. With Iraq hitting the fourth year March 20, there's no end in sight. White House predictions haven't panned out, either about the original excuse for war or the plan to transfer security responsibility to the Iraqi government. “A president does have the ability to persuade,” said an unnamed White House official, forgetting that this president's low approval ratings and lame-duck status leave his credibility disabled. Changing faces and shuffling Cabinet positions doesn't alter the fundamental flaw in Bush's Iraq policy: That the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want the U.S. out.

      As the '08 election season heats up, Democrats must take decisive positions on Iraq. So far, expected Democratic frontrunner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) remains stuck on the fence, fearing the pacifist label. Other possible candidates, like Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), have asked the White House for a workable exit strategy. “I think there'll be a lot of support by Republican members and I hope some Democrats will understand . . . that a failure in Iraq is a disaster for the country,” said Sen. Lindsay O. Graham (R-S.C.) on NBC's “Meet The Press,” closing ranks with the White House. What the White House and Graham don't get is that it's time to cut U.S. losses. More troops, more money and more time won't stop Iraq's insurgency, currently supported by Iran, Syria, Russia and a host other Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia.

      Bush's “new” plan repeats the same mistake as last July, when the Pentagon re-deployed a brigade back to Baghdad. Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki can't promise to go after Shiite death squads and, simultaneously, continue to use radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr as his personal bodyguard. Adding more troops to Baghdad expands the risk to U.S. forces, already witnessing dramatic increases in death and injury rates. Bush needs to think more about protecting U.S. forces than face-saving and preserving his presidential legacy. Adding more troops buys the White House more time, finding a way to pass Iraq's failure onto the Congress. More rearranging, more delays, more wishing, more money, more troops and more time won't stop the insurgency from spoiling White House plans. U.S. officials must accept that most Iraqis want the U.S. out, whatever the price.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.