|
One last
chance for sanity in Iraq: Americans are not Romans - Bush is
yet to learn
Posted by Ramzy Baroud
The majority of American voters made their voices heard
loud and clear in November when they voted out Bush's archaic
thinking, a mixture of old imperialist ideas, bent on
territorial accumulation and strategic positioning,
notwithstanding misguided religious beliefs.
According to the latest public opinion polls, nearly three
out of four U.S. respondents now say they disapprove of Bush's
handling of Iraq, while confidence in his overall leadership
has fallen to record lows.
Bush is yet to learn, however, that the United States is
not Rome, and strengths and weakness are no longer measured
alone by a nation's number of combatants. The past three and a
half years of utter failure in Iraq should have been the sign
any rational leader would need to change course; but few ever
argued that the president is an icon of leadership or
even-headedness; thus the "new" Iraq strategy.
Just one day after the leadership of the U.S. Congress was
handed over to the victorious Democrats, after many years of
absence, Bush began to reshuffle his war generals in a way
that is consistent with neither the wishes of the American
people nor the majority of Congress.
Though the Iraq strategy was scheduled to be laid out
officially on Wednesday, early signs show that the president
intends to beef up his war efforts and perhaps prepare for a
new showdown, this time with Iran.
An early ominous sign came when Bush signaled his
intentions for a troop surge in Iraq, with an additional
20,000-40,000 soldiers to bolster the 140,000 already on the
ground. Bush insists that such a dramatic increase is
temporary and will only come about when he receives guarantees
from the current Iraqi government - a puppet government by any
standards - that it is willing to take charge and play its
part.
Expectedly, many Democratic members of Congress, and even
some members of Bush's own Republican Party, are opposed to
such a move. That rejection was articulated in an open letter
released on Friday, written by the new leaders of Congress,
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid. "Adding more combat troops will only endanger more
Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for
no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get
the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future,"
Pelosi and Reid wrote.
Bush is also expected to request US$100 billion in addition
to the $75 billion already approved by last year's
Republican-led Congress, to fund U.S. military operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal 2007.
Disgruntled Democrats are not alone in objecting to Bush's
imprudent proposal; the military leadership also finds it
reckless and futile. Therefore, top army brass Generals George
Casey and John Abizaid, who are deeply skeptical regarding
increasing troop numbers in Iraq, are on their way to be
replaced by war supporters.
General David Petraeus, a war supporter who participated in
the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, is set to take over from
Casey as the top ground commander.
Moreover, the president reportedly intends to endorse
William Fallon to head U.S. Central Command. The choice of
Fallon, according to Tim Reid, The Times of London's reporter
in Washington, as the top military commander in the Middle
East - to replace Abizaid - came as a big surprise to the
Pentagon, for the former is a naval officer with little
experience in that region.
But things will fall neatly in place when one considers
that Bush's choice has more to do with Iran than repairing the
damage done in Iraq: "Any mission against Tehran would
rely heavily on carrier-based aircraft and missiles from the
Persian Gulf," according to The Times, and the expertise
of Fallon is most needed in that type of military scenario.
But boosting the number of U.S. troops at a time when the
U.S. Army seems to be stretched to its maximum is not an easy
job, even for the can-do president. Military analysts suggest
that Bush can only successfully make up his force surge by
extending tours and resorting to the reserve. Both moves will
likely increase the number of U.S. casualties at a higher rate
than the present - keeping in mind that to date more than
3,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed in the war - and will
make the war bill a whole lot more expensive - about $350
billion has been spent without even an emblematic constructive
outcome.
Most of the new troops will be positioned in Sunni areas in
Baghdad and al-Anbar province, seen as the heart of the
resistance. Only a naive person would argue that such a
stratagem would lead to anything other than greater bloodshed
and further enlivening and validating the so-called
insurgents.
Although the "Sunni insurgency" remains the prime
target of the US military in Iraq, there is a growing
realization among U.S. officials and war generals that the
unruly Shia militias and their death squads are a greater
cause of instability and violence.
Ironically, the rise of the Shia militias was an early U.S.
strategy that put the many Shia factions on a crash course
with the Sunni resistance: thus dividing and weakening the
Iraqis and lowering the risk of American casualties.
Now that the Iraqi army and police are composed mostly from
those same militant thugs, many Iraqis find themselves
victimized by their supposed national army and police force.
Those who are expecting Iraqis to "take responsibility
for their future" seem oblivious to the fact that the
future of Iraq is most bleak under the current U.S.-devised
sectarianism where Sunnis are murdered with impunity and Shias
are blown up in their markets.
The humiliating execution of former Iraqi president Saddam
Hussein at the hands of masked Shia guards purporting to be an
executive arm of a legitimate government was indeed the last
attestation that will forever categorize the ongoing strife in
Iraq as one between Shias and Sunnis, the former allied to
invading foreigners and the latter fighting for mere survival.
The fact that the inner Iraqi strife is now categorically
defined according to sectarian lines, Bush must realize that
the situation in Iraq has reached a point of unprecedented
sensitivity, and his macho politics and infamous stubbornness
can lead only to further disasters. His actions this week and
expected moves to follow will lead to a situation that neither
his party nor the Democrats with their blurred policy outlook
can repair.
Bush must immediately provide a roadmap for withdrawal from
Iraq to be carried out in stages to allow for synchronized,
constructive regional and international roles that will engage
the United Nations, the Arab League and, most important, all
Iraqi social groups; otherwise, a divided Iraq with all the
ills and regional mayhem it will bring about will remain an
inescapable last option.
| 