The President's new strategy: the same as the old ... and worse

by Tom Maertens

We now know first-hand what the important new direction the war in Iraq is going to take: stay the course, but with more troops. Bush's principal mistake, it seems, was not escalating sooner.

This is the announcement that was promised in December, after the ISG report, but was postponed while the President consulted with more experts, and not coincidently, delayed taking action.

By escalating the war, Bush has rejected the idea of seeking a graceful exit and signalled that, instead, he likely wants to run out the clock on Iraq, and pass the whole mess to his successor. That will almost surely be followed by a propaganda campaign to blame the loss of Iraq on Bush's successor, the one who will have no alternative but to cut our losses and withdraw US troops.

This is not a change in strategy, as Bush contends. It is simply increasing the ante -- doubling down -- in hopes of delaying the inevitable: sacrificing more American lives in hopes of salvaging Bush's reputation.

The interim was also used to replace military skeptics like Abizaid and Casey with those favoring escalation like Fallon, Odierno and Petraeus. Now Bush can say that he is listening to his military experts when he sends more troops.

Press leaks suggest that Bush wanted just about any policy that his administration could come up with that would be distinct from what the ISG recommended. George W. Bush, who reportedly didn't know there was a historical conflict between Sunnis and Shia, certainly wouldn't want to be seen taking advice from Daddy's friends.

He is apparently also unaware that al Qaeda was formed as a result of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and that we are in the process of replicating the Soviet failure by radicalizing another generation of young Muslims. Nonetheless, all evidence to the contrary, George Bush thinks he knows how to fight the war on terrorism, which he still contends has something to do with Iraq. He even blames al Qaeda rather than Iraqi insurgents for the violence.

Will 20,000 more US troops ensure success? Not likely. The core of the new strategy is actually dependent on Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki, who has promised -- scout's honor -- that he will eliminate Shiite militias and not just Sunni ones.

Again, not likely. He is a least common denominator prime minister, selected because he was unobjectionable to the Shiite majority, and specifically, to Moqtada al-Sadr. Suppressing Shiite militias would undercut al-Maliki's most important patron.

More ominously for US troops, attacking al-Sadr's militia could turn the Shiites against us. Up to now, most of the fighting has occurred in Sunni-dominated areas, such as al Anbar, and the mixed areas. Sunni insurgent groups have been responsible for the overwhelming percentage of the attacks on US forces. Should we now undertake to suppress Shia groups, as well, US troops will be targetted by both sides. In which case, we can expect many more casualties than in the past.

According to the Iraqi Ministry of Health, Iraq suffered 17,000 deaths in the last six months. This is a civil war, one that US troops should not be a part of.

In addition, he is sending a carrier task group to intimidate Iran along with some Patriot missiles for allies. That raises the question of just how far this administration will go to change the subject. The reference to interupting the flow of supplies from Iran and Syria can only be ominous.

Meanwhile, the war on terror in Afghanistan continues to go south, a fact unmentioned by the President.