A week and a half ago, George W. Bush went on television to outline his new "plan" for Iraq. Put aside for the moment the problem that we have no business deciding what is best for another country. Put aside as well the problem that Americans have said, in overwhelming numbers, that they want no more part of Iraq. The real problem with Bush's speech has hardly been mentioned.There is no plan.
Everybody is talking about the wisdom (if any) of the proposed "surge". They're talking about whether the Democrats have coalesced on an alternate plan yet. They're even beginning to talk about whether anything we do can make things better in Iraq.
But nobody seems to be talking about the fact that Bush's "new plan" is nothing but a collection of old phrases, repackaged into a long, boring speech.
The supposed core of Bush's speech has already begun to be implemented. Some of the 21,000 extra troops have already been dispatched to Iraq. But our troop levels there have been in the range of 130,000 to 160,000 for the past four years. This "surge" only moves us from the low end of that range to the upper end of that same range. There's nothing new here. We've had more troops in Iraq in the past, with nothing to show for it.
Bush also talked about an Iraqi "commitment" to deploy 18 brigades of army and police forces in Baghdad. That sounds nice, but there is not only no commitment, but also no ability to fulfill such a commitment if it were made. Those 18 brigades don't exist, and if they are ever created, it won't be any time soon. You cannot deploy forces that don't exist.
Furthermore, those 18 brigades must be formed from Iraqis now living in Baghdad. Past experience has proven that Iraqis are not willing to be sent to other parts of their country. And even with an unemployment rate that is worse that the depths of our Great Depression, Iraqis are extremely hesitant to sign up for a job that could kill them before they begin working.
Next is the "clear, hold, build" strategy that will supposedly make all the difference. The problem here is that we're already trying that, and it isn't working. We don't have nearly enough military strength to hold significant portions of Baghdad, much less the rest of the country. But worse than that, Bush has failed, or refused, to recognize that military forces alone cannot accomplish the job. We have lost whatever goodwill we might have gained by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; in order to lead the rebuilding of Iraq we must first regain that goodwill. And that cannot be accomplished, or even begun, through military occupation.
According to Bush, Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki "has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated" when American forces want to enter neighborhoods from which the violence stems. But Maliki's statements since the speech have only demonstrated that he is either unwilling or unable to stand up to either Sunni or Shia militia leaders.
Then there is the $10 billion that Bush claims the Iraqi government has pledged to spend on reconstruction. Where is that money? If the Iraqi government has it, why aren't they spending it? And if they don't have it, where will it come from? Is Bush going to send his fiscal advisors to Iraq to teach them about deficit spending?
There is one major difference between the Bush administration's actions in the Middle East to date and their actions for the near future. They have begun to widen the war beyond Iraq's borders. Bush has sent "an additional carrier strike group to the region," as some sort of warning to Iran. Since the speech, Bush apparently ordered the invasion of Iran - American troops under the direct orders of the President attacked what amounted to an Iranian consulate in Kurdish-controlled Iraq. That consulate may actually be, under international law, Iranian territory.
So instead of following the demands of the American people and the advice of both his Iraqi Study Group and the top generals in the field, George W. Bush is widening the war. That's it. There are no other real changes, just an escalation.
Bush is scheduled to leave office in just under two years. The time has come to escalate the timetable for his departure.
Copyright 2007, Dan Jacoby
For a PDF version of this document, click here.
To contact Dan Jacoby, click here.
Return to the Main Menu