WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 (UPI) -- President George W. Bush revealed his latest policy intended to try and extricate Iraq from the brink of civil war and to quell the violence that has gripped the country since the U.S. invasion overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein over three years ago.
The president called the situation in Iraq "unacceptable to the American people and unacceptable to me." Bush admitted that where mistakes were made, the responsibility rested with him.
The president's plan calls for the deployment of some additional 20,000 soldiers and Marines to be deployed primarily in Baghdad and the Anbar area in a last-ditch effort to try and salvage a tattered policy.
"It is clear that we need a change of strategy in Iraq," said the president in a televised speech to the nation Wednesday night.
This is the seventh change of policy in the three years the United States has been involved militarily in Iraq. Opponents of the war see this latest policy shift as an escalation in the conflict rather than a move towards a solution.
"Unwilling to accept the failure of his war of aggression in Iraq, his 'war of choice,' Bush announced tonight a plan that will succeed only in sending thousands of Iraqis and U.S. soldiers to their graves in the next year," said a communiqué from ANSWER, the left-leaning anti-war coalition.
The general belief by the president and his closest advisers is that the additional troops will help suppress the lawlessness and fight off the insurgency. The aim is to try and bring about some form of law and order in a country where havoc and chaos rules.
"Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States," said Bush. "The consequences of failure are clear," said the president, indicating it would open the way for al-Qaida and their supporters, who would use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. "Iran can be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons," said Bush.
Many analysts, however, see the infusion of additional American forces in Iraq as shortsighted policy that will provide the insurgents that many more targets to go after.
President Bush's plan to deploy more troops to "clean" and then hold neighborhood by neighborhood in Baghdad sounds good on paper. But the president's plan leaves much room for wishful thinking in believing that radical change -- for the better -- is going to occur among Iraqi forces overnight. Why would the death squads suddenly disappear? Why would the Sunni-Shiite mistrust dissipate based on a speech delivered by the American president?
Why would Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki's promise to keep sectarianism and politics out of his security forces be different this time? Promises from Iraqi leaders have failed in the past.
"Iraq's Maliki government has to date proven incapable and unwilling to allow political and economic developments necessary to stabilization. And it has failed to stem Sunni insurgents and has refused to suppress Shiite death squads," commented James Hoge, editor, and Peter G. Peterson, chair of Foreign Affairs. "Meanwhile, the insurgency has gained new recruits among despairing Iraqis and increased the effectiveness of its tactics," added Hoge and Peterson.
"The most realistic outlook is for civil strife between Shiites and Sunnis to rage on for a number of years until there is a clear winner, a compromise borne of exhaustion or a break up of the country. The challenge for the United States will be to keep the entire, oil-rich region from descending into chaos," say Hoge and Peterson.
Bush said he told the Iraqi prime minister "America's commitment is not open ended." If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises it will lose the support of the American people.
Flexing his political muscle Bush announced the dispatch of a third carrier task force to the Middle East and singled out Syria and Iran, saying that "these two regimes are allowing terrorists to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq." Bush said Iran was providing material support for attacks on American troops.
William Nash, a senior fellow for conflict prevention and director of the Center for Preventive Action, found the president's speech "incomplete and disappointing."
"On the diplomatic side he once again antagonized Iran and Syria, and left no room for any cooperation. Politically, his 'benchmarks' for Iraqi progress and goals for democracy were weak and unrealistic. He failed to articulate the consequences of Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks. Militarily, he promised priority on Baghdad and Anbar and increased activity in countering Syrian and Iranian interference, but not how the latter would be accomplished -- empty threats or more conflict?"
Replying to the president's televised speech to the nation, ANSWER said: "Bush gave the people of the United States a warning that they should expect the coming year will be 'bloody and violent,' with TV screens filled with images of death and suffering. He tried to inoculate himself from responsibility for this carnage although his plan makes it inevitable."
Indeed, it seems inevitable that before long there will be the need for another change of policy in Iraq.
--
(Comments may be sent to [email protected].)
