If Bush doesn't radically change direction on Iraq, the region could be massively upturned, writes Ramzy Baroud* President George W Bush's new war strategy, which is yet to become official and will likely meet an uphill battle in the now Democrat-controlled Congress, is a slap on the face of the majority of American voters, and indeed, the democratic process altogether. The majority of Americans 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. Bush has yet to learn that the United States is not Rome and that a nation's given number of combatants is no longer the sole measure of strength and weakness. The last 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 level-headedness; thus the "new" Iraq strategy. Just one day after the leadership of the US Congress was handed over to the victorious Democrats, after many years of deserved absence, Bush began to reshuffle his war generals in a way that is neither consistent with the wishes of the American people, nor the majority of Congress. Though the new Iraq strategy was scheduled to be officially announced Wednesday 10 January, 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 ominous early sign came when President Bush signaled his intentions for a troop surge in Iraq, with an additional 20,000 to 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 standard -- 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 party, are opposed to such a move. That rejection was articulated in an open letter released Friday 5 January, 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 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. But disgruntled Democrats are not alone in objecting Bush's imprudent proposal; the US military leadership also finds it reckless and futile. Therefore, top army brass Generals Casey and Abizaid, who are deeply sceptical about increasing troop numbers in Iraq, are on their way out, to be replaced by war supporters. General Petraeus, a war supporter who participated in the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, is set to take over from General Casey as the top ground commander. Moreover, the president reportedly intends to endorse Admiral Fallon to head US Central Command. The choice of Fallon as the top military commander in the Middle East replacing General Abizaid, according to a London Times reporter in Washington, came as a big surprise to the Pentagon for Fallon is a naval officer with little experience in the region. But things fall neatly into 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 US troops at a time that the US army seems to be stretched to its limit 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 US causalities at a higher rate than at present -- keeping in mind that until now over 3,000 US soldiers have been killed in the war -- and will make the war a whole lot more expensive, with around $350 billion spent so far without even an emblematic constructive outcome. Most of the new troops will be positioned in Sunni areas in Baghdad and the Anbar Province, seen as the heart of the resistance. Only a naïve person would argue that such stratagem would lead to anything other than greater bloodshed and would further enliven and validate the so-called "insurgents". Although the "Sunni insurgency" remains the prime target of the US military in Iraq, there is a growing realisation among US 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 American 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 of those same militant thugs, many Iraqis find themselves victimised by their own 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 US- devised sectarian plan where Sunnis are murdered with impunity and Shias are blown up in their markets. The humiliating execution of 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 categorise the ongoing strife in Iraq as one between Shia and Sunni, the former allied to invading foreigners and the latter fighting for bare survival. Now that inner Iraqi strife is categorically defined according to sectarian lines, President Bush must realise that the situation in Iraq has reached a point of unprecedented sensitivity and that 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 synchronised, constructive regional and international roles that would engage the United Nations, the Arab League, but most importantly all Iraqi social groups. Otherwise, a divided Iraq, with all the ills and regional mayhem that it would bring about, will be inescapable. * The writer is an Arab-American journalist.
