by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Dec. 13, 2006
All Rights Reserved.

aced with growing public impatience and a Democratic Congress, President George W. Bush has a “new” plan for Iraq: More of the same. Since the Iraq Study Group announced the present plan isn't working, it's time for Plan B, selling the idea that more money, more troops and more time will solve the Iraq conundrum: How to get Iraqis to defend themselves. With a little more than two years left to his presidency, White House strategists—not Pentagon planners—decided that Bush's legacy is best protected by staying-the-course. GOP strategists fear a repeat of the 2006 midyear election in 2008, where Republicans got creamed because of Iraq. Cynical as it sounds, Karl Rove & Co. is more concerned about Bush's legacy and presidential history than whether the GOP keeps the Oval Office. Before the Congress acquiesces, they must get the bigger picture.

      Overwhelming public opinion polls indicate that Iraq is a lost cause. Calling the Baker-Hamilton commission report the “Iraq surrender plan,” conservative commentators provide valuable clues into White House thinking in advance of Bush's highly anticipated speech on Iraq, not expected until next month. At his Dec. 13 press conference, Bush warned about the expected disaster from giving up on Iraq, including the growing likelihood of more terror on American streets. Reading between the lines, it's clear that Bush plans to push the pedal-to-the-metal during his final two years, escalating U.S. involvement regardless of costs. If the economy keeps rolling, the treasury will have enough cash to fund the $10 billion a month price tag. Next year, the Pentagon plans to ramp up troop strength, increase industrial aid and go after radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

      Bush's plan to dismantle al-Sadr's al-Mahdi army could break Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's labile government and drive the region into all-out civil war. Sectarian violence claims around 3,000 Iraqi lives a month, a figure that could double or triple without the security shield provided by al-Sadr's forces. Al-Maliki's military derives its strength from al-Sadr, providing his government the best security shield against the Sunni onslaught. Al-Sadr not only gives al-Maliki a security buffer he has the blessings of Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Al-Sistani stopped the U.S. military from decimating al-Sadr's army in the Oct. 24, 2004 battle of Fallouja, allowing al-Sadr to escape with his fighters. While conventional wisdom says Maliki must deal with Iraq's renegade insurgents, attacking al-Sadr could boomerang, plunging the country into more anarchy.

      Public opinion goes against stepped up military operations because of sectarian violence and the rising death toll. Much of al-Maliki's army has more loyalty to al-Sadr than to Iraq's new government. It's difficult getting Iraq's new military to defend the country when the personnel swear allegiance to al-Sadr and other domestic and foreign terrorists. Bush wants Iraq to defend, govern and sustain itself, an impossible task when its own army remains infiltrated by insurgents. “This is a big moment,” said an unnamed Pentagon official. “It's enormously important for the new Secretary of Defense to revisit what the overall objective is . . . and what is needed to achieve that,” talking as if Robert M. Gates will have more say than former Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld got the ax for Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney's failed strategy of relying on Iraq's new government for victory.

      While Bush weighs his options, the Pentagon wants to “double-down,” giving a last ditch push to pullout the victory. By “double-down,” the military wants to increase troop strength and go after Iraq's civilian militias responsible for Iraq's runaway violence and civilian death toll. Pentagon officials are well aware that adding more U.S. forces could backfire, endangering more troops and escalating the bloody insurgency. Iran, Syria and, yes, Russia, are committed to defeating U.S. occupation, paying the U.S. back for supporting Osama bin Laden's fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the early ‘80s. “You do not want to withdraw your troops until you achieve your mission,” said Andrew Krepinevic, a counterinsurgency expert, director of the Center for Budgetary Assessments, believing U.S. forces will fight in Iraq for decades to protect and stabilize the new government.

      Bush's “new” strategy involves the old idea of achieving victory by helping Iraq's new government defend, govern and sustain itself. Already the most unpopular president in recent U.S. history, Bush hopes to fight to the bitter end, blaming Iraq's ultimate failure on future U.S. presidents. He has nothing to lose other than setting up Democrats to win the White House in 2008. As American war-dead approach 3,000, it's a bitter reminder of the wasted tax dollars and U.S. lives to rebuild Saddam Hussein's once authoritarian regime. Today's Iraq has an elected government incapable of stopping a bloody insurgency and guerilla war, spiraling into chaos. Bush's “new” plan promises to use the military to fight the same guerrilla war with the same results. Adding more troops and stepping up attacks on Iraq's militias will only yield more casualties and stiffen the resistance.

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.