[Texgreen] Bush wants more troops

[Roger Baker]

.... The one thing that could really change US policy is not any =20
think-tank in Washington, but events on the ground. Most casualties =20
in Iraq come not from attacks on or by coalition forces but from =20
communal violence, mainly between Shia and Sunni militias. This trend =20=

is by far the biggest threat to US ambitions in the country and the =20
biggest single dictator of military policy. As the country spirals =20
further into civil war, the US could eventually be powerless to stop =20
a catastrophe no matter what strategy it adopts...

               *************************************************


<http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1968558,00.html>

After Baker, what next for the war in Iraq?


He is under intense pressure after last week's damning report on =20
Iraq. But George Bush is likely to disappoint his critics by pouring =20
in more troops

Paul Harris and Peter Beaumont
Sunday December 10, 2006
The Observer

Gordon Smith stood up on the Senate floor, his voice slow and =20
serious. The Republican Senator from Oregon had been an ultra-loyal =20
supporter of the Iraq war and President Bush. Until last week.

Now he had changed his mind. Smith labelled US policy in Iraq absurd =20
and 'maybe even criminal'. He had been spurred to speak, he said, by =20
White House reaction to last week's Iraq Study Group (ISG) report. =20
'Let's cut and run, or cut and walk ... because we have fought this =20
war in a very lamentable way,' Smith told colleagues.

It was an astonishing speech made all the more so by Smith's =20
previously spotless Republican pro-war credentials. But then it has =20
been a remarkable week in Washington. The ISG report spelt out the =20
sheer scale of the disaster in Iraq. Many experts saw it as a =20
devastating indictment of Bush's policies. But the panel, headed by =20
Bush family friend James Baker and former Democrat congressman Lee =20
Hamilton, also laid out a blueprint for success. Its 79 =20
recommendations envisioned a gradual withdrawal of US combat troops =20
by 2008 and a diplomatic offensive to engage Iran and Syria to bring =20
stability to the country.

Many expected Bush and his coterie of top officials to accept the =20
report. Or at least be chastened by it. In fact, neither happened. =20
Just as the report exposed the divisions in Iraq, it also revealed =20
the chasms in American attitudes to the conflict. Bush's reaction =20
revealed a White House still determined to go its own way. Far from =20
looking for a way out, he is still looking for a way to win the war. =20
'Some people believe the central challenge is how the US can leave =20
Iraq. He believes the central challenge is how to make it work. He =20
wants victory,' said Larry Haas, a political commentator and former =20
Clinton White House official.

For those who hoped Baker and his bipartisan committee would at last =20
offer a way out of Iraq and an end to the war, last week turned into =20
a deep disappointment. Only one thing became clear: the US military =20
presence in Iraq is not going anywhere soon.

Before the end of the year, most likely before Christmas, Bush will =20
appear on prime time television. He will outline what his officials =20
are dubbing 'The New Way Forward' for Iraq. The specifics of that =20
policy are not yet known. But they are unlikely to be a full =20
implementation of the ISG report.

Three other reviews of Iraq policy are currently being carried out. =20
One by the military, another by the National Security Council and a =20
third by the State Department. All will be presented to Bush over the =20=

next week or so. Only then will the White House begin crafting its =20
own policy. What will emerge - despite all the media huffing and =20
puffing - is likely to be little different from the current policy of =20=

standing down US troops only when Iraqi forces are capable of =20
independent action. 'I don't expect any major lurches in our policy,' =20=

said a senior diplomatic source.

Perhaps the most important report Bush will receive will be from a =20
military panel headed by General Peter Pace. That report is likely to =20=

suggest a range of options dubbed 'Go Strong, Go Long or Go Home'. It =20=

could recommend increasing troop numbers in a short-term 'surge' to =20
bring stability to Baghdad and then settling in for the long haul =20
while trying to bring the Iraqi army up to speed.

That is also the thinking behind the National Security Council's =20
research, headed by National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. In a =20
leaked memo Hadley has described bringing additional US combat troops =20=

into Baghdad. These reports, unlike the ISG, were commissioned by the =20=

White House and are likely to be received more warmly by Bush. 'The =20
Baker report was embraced only by the media. A lot of people on the =20
right see it as defeatist and naive,' Haas said.
Bush's New Way Forward is likely to disappoint many critics, =20
especially in European diplomatic circles. He is most likely to start =20=

increasing short-term troop number, not withdrawing them. Just two =20
days before he resigned, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Bush =20
in a memo that he believed US troops should be 'drawn down' to =20
encourage Iraqis to stand up for themselves. The new Pentagon chief, =20
Robert Gates, will in fact pursue the opposite of that policy by =20
ordering an increase in troops in the new year, numbering perhaps =20
30,000 in order to secure the capital.

Though Baker has warned that the White House should not treat his =20
report 'like a fruit salad' and only choose bits of it, that is =20
exactly what is set to happen. Bush has already shown himself =20
sceptical of its two key suggestions: no US combat brigades in Iraq =20
within 15 months and direct talks with Iran and Syria. The clearest =20
signal of Bush's thinking was provided at his White House press =20
conference with Tony Blair. 'History will look back on our time with =20
unforgiving clarity and demand to know what happened,' he said. 'How =20
come free nations did not act to preserve the peace?'

There is an element of that 'big picture' attitude in British policy-=20
making circles too. Though there has been much talk of a British =20
handover of Basra in the spring, that is far from a withdrawal. 'The =20
idea that we are going to pack our bags and scoot early won't happen =20
if there is any chance that we have to go back again,' said one =20
senior British defence source.

There is also a brutal political reality at work. The ISG report is =20
entirely non-binding. The only decisions that really matter are made =20
in the White House. 'Jesus Christ himself could be on the panel. It =20
does not matter,' said Haas. The same goes for the rivalry last week =20
between Baker, who was Secretary of State under the elder George =20
Bush, and the current office holder Condoleezza Rice. Baker may have =20
first known Rice when she was just a Soviet analyst during the Cold =20
War, but she calls the shots now. While last week Baker was =20
conducting high-profile interviews against her diplomatic strategy =20
and urging talks with Iran and Syria, Rice, a known advocate of =20
isolating Syria and Iran diplomatically, remained silent. By the end =20
of last week Baker seemed to have given up. He told one interviewer =20
he would take part in today's morning political talkshows but after =20
that he would stop speaking out. 'I'm finished,' he said.

But reality has a way of penetrating even the bubble surrounding the =20
White House. The ISG report, even if ignored, spelled out the facts =20
on the ground in Iraq and signalled the end of the neo-conservative =20
dream of reshaping the Middle East. 'It shows that everybody has =20
finally recognised the reality of the situation in Iraq,' said Larry =20
Johnson, a counter-terrorism expert formerly in the State Department =20
and the CIA.

The ISG report has given the Democrats a vital political boost and =20
allows them to solve their problem of having no unified policy on =20
Iraq. Because the panel was bipartisan it lets the party embrace a =20
firm strategy on the war without appearing unpatriotic. At the same =20
time it splits the Republican party between the White House and its =20
members in Congress. While the White House can cling to ideas of =20
staying the course, they do so in the knowledge that no one in the =20
administration will have to face another election campaign. That is =20
not true for Republican politicians smarting from their defeat in the =20=

midterm elections or White House hopefuls with an eye on the 2008 =20
presidential campaign.

Thus the ISG report does represent the end of a brand of neo-con =20
philosophy whereby democracy could be exported to the Middle East on =20
the back of a successful invasion of Iraq. 'Even the most ardent =20
supporters of the war accept that that has changed,' said Haas. On =20
all fronts, ambitions have been scaled back. Talk now, even among =20
ardent neocons, is of stability not democracy.

But even that may be hard to achieve. Bush may have rejected direct =20
talks with Iran and Syria, but it is difficult to see that those =20
nations would have wanted such discussions. Iran has benefited hugely =20=

from the conflict in Iraq, emerging as a regional power player. 'The =20
neocons are just flailing around. They are more discredited day after =20=

day after day,' Johnson said.

The one thing that could really change US policy is not any think-=20
tank in Washington, but events on the ground. Most casualties in Iraq =20=

come not from attacks on or by coalition forces but from communal =20
violence, mainly between Shia and Sunni militias. This trend is by =20
far the biggest threat to US ambitions in the country and the biggest =20=

single dictator of military policy. As the country spirals further =20
into civil war, the US could eventually be powerless to stop a =20
catastrophe no matter what strategy it adopts.

So for the future, there is likely to be only more of the same from =20
Iraq. US forces will be committed there for years. The violence is =20
likely to continue unabated. International diplomatic efforts will =20
achieve little. Certainly while Bush is president there is likely to =20
be no strong reversal of US policy.

The parallels with Vietnam are apt. Then it was President Lyndon =20
Johnson who seemed trapped into a cycle of violence abroad. It was =20
only his successor, Richard Nixon, who was able to embark on =20
'Vietnamisation' of the conflict and the gradual withdrawal of the US =20=

army. That is no doubt a lesson that 2008 presidential hopefuls - =20
from John McCain to Hillary Clinton - are looking at closely. The =20
only thing that can really make America change course is probably a =20
new face in the White House.

But there is another lesson from Vietnam too. Nixon's withdrawal was =20
long, slow and bloody. It lasted from 1969 to 1973. Two years later, =20
South Vietnam collapsed. That is why so many in America refuse to =20
accept that leaving Iraq under the cloud of defeat is a viable =20
option. There must be some form of victory. 'The cost of defeat will =20
be far greater than the cost of seeing it through to a victory. A =20
victory of at least some standard,' said Haas.
Baker's big week

=B7 President Bush's copy was autographed by the nine men and one woman =20=

of the Iraq Study Group.

=B7 It was published by Vintage Books, of Random House, at $10.95 and =20=

hit no 4 on the Amazon.com bestseller list.

=B7 Frank Wolf, the Congressman who launched the study, wept over it.

=B7 By 4pm on Wednesday, it had been downloaded 400,000 times.