Bush’s New-Old Iraq Strategy.

As I listened to The President's speech I could only think: He is still in a State of Denial. What we have here is more of the same failed policy and a refusal to face up to reality.

What is evident is that to Bush there is only one reality that he is concerned with, and that is the disillusionment of the American people; that he is now facing a Democratic Congress ready to ask hard questions and wavering Republicans fearful of their fate in the next election. The country wants out of Iraq. The people understand what Bush does not. The mistakes of the past can no longer be undone. Iraq is a disaster and our pulling out will cause a larger disaster. But that will happen no matter when we pull out. Our staying may delay an all out civil war but it can no longer change the dynamics on the ground.

Bush realized even before the election that the American people had enough of the same. So a commission of wise men from past Administrations, of Democrats and Republicans was formed. It was known as the Baker/Hamilton commission and it was generally agreed that this was the source from which a new policy could spring. The commission spent a great deal of time studying the situation and they came up with a new plan. Not one that guaranteed success, but one that at least has a chance.

The President has totally ignored those recommendations just as he failed to implement most of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.

In the meantime the media is failing to give us the whole story. In drawing up his “new plan” he was greatly influenced by recommendations made by Frederick W. Kagan, a military historian who has taught at West Point, and whose education consists of B.A., Soviet and East European studies; Ph.D., Russian and Soviet military history, Yale University and Jack Keane who is a retired Army general. Both are scholars at the right wing Enterprise Institute. In an article written for that think tank and published here they write, “It is difficult to imagine a responsible plan for getting the violence in and around Baghdad under control that could succeed with fewer than 30,000 combat troops beyond the forces already in Iraq.” So Bush true to his past does a halfhearted job of following the recommendations for stepping up our commitment instead of phasing it down. Thus it is evident that even Bush’s strongest supporters make it clear that Bush’s plan is doomed to failure.

They emphasize this when they say; “The United States faces a dire situation in Iraq because of a history of half-measures. We have always sent "just enough" force to succeed if everything went according to plan. So far nothing has, and there's no reason to believe that it will. Sound military planning doesn't work this way. The only "surge" option that makes sense is both long and large.

Furthermore it is interesting to note that Bush did not tell us exactly what neighborhoods in Baghdad are to be targeted. The article does. It says, “Reducing the violence in the SUNNI AND MIXED NEIGHBORHOODS (emphasis added) in Baghdad is the most critical military task the U.S. armed forces face anywhere in the world.” Please note the absence of any mention of Shiite neighborhoods or Sadr’s militia. What they are evidently advocating and what Bush is apparently planning is to take sides in the Civil war on the side of the Shiite against the Sunni’s.

This would certainly get the support of the Shiite Prime minister of Iraq, Maliki, a Shiite, the head of the Dawa Shiite party and an ally of Muqtada al-Sadr. We have ostensible tried to get him to be a peacemaker between the warring factions but it is increasingly evident that Maliki like most Shiites in Iraq, has an agenda which can be summarized as, the Sunnis, who are a minority in Iraq, ruled over us under Sadam Hussein-now it is our turn to rule over the Sunnis. We are the majority, we won the election, and it is our turn to rule.

To support this may sound tempting to the authors of this article and to the Administration but it ignores that except for Iran, who we have dubbed our enemy, the Middle East from Saudi Arabia, to Egypt to Jordan, etc are all Sunnis. They will not stand by idly and Iran will benefit hugely as will the Shiite terrorists, Hezbollah, in Lebanon. Is this what victory now means to the President.

Finally, it should be noted that in the Army’s first field manual devoted exclusively to counterinsurgency operations issued in twenty years, which was published in December of 2006 and which can be found here, the following is stated:

"1-67…. MOST DENSITY RECOMMENDATIONS FALL WITHIN A RANGE OF 20 TO 25 COUNTERINSURGENTS FOR EVERY 1000 RESIDENTS IN AN AO. TWENTY COUNTERINSURGENTS PER 1000 RESIDENTS IS OFTEN CONSIDERED THE MINIMUM TROOP DENSITY REQUIRED FOR EFFECTIVE COIN OPERATIONS; (emphasis added)

If we take the recommended density recommendations of the Army and we take into account the fact that there are 5 million residents in Baghdad it becomes obvious that the Army believes that nothing less than 100,000 troops are required for Baghdad alone.

This Administration has learned nothing. It ignores the recommendations of its greatest supporters in the political sphere; it ignores the Army manual; it ignores the recommendation of its generals and of-course it ignores the recommendations of the independent commission.

Even the Washington Times, that stalwart ally of Bush, believes the plan to be folly.

Unfortunately our fighting men are the victims of these misguided and bizarre policies, which are neither fish, nor fowl but have only one purpose in mind and that is to pass the hard decisions on to the next Administration. To sacrifice untold lives to this endeavor is the height of ignominy.