By Tao Wenzhao
The first batch of an American combat brigade, around 3,500 to
4,000 troops, arrived in Baghdad on Monday, following US President
George W. Bush's televised speech laying out his "new strategy in
Iraq" on January 10.
If there is anything new in his statement, it is the fact that
Bush wants to send more forces to Iraq rather than gradually
pulling out of the country as the American people and the rest of
the world hope for.
At the very beginning of his speech, Bush said neither the
American people nor he could accept the current situation in Iraq.
And "where mistakes have been made, I'm responsible for them".
However, he has insisted on two points and reiterated them in
his January 10 speech that the war in Iraq is necessary and part of
the global war on terror; and America did not and must not fail in
Iraq because, if America fails, it would be a disaster for Iraq,
the rest of the Middle East, the United States and the global war
on terror.
The new strategy Bush talked about in his latest public address
is to correct the mistakes he had made. He believes the most urgent
task in Iraq is to restore security, especially in Baghdad, where
more then 80 percent of the country's violence takes place.
?
US forces have failed to maintain security in Baghdad so far mainly
for two reasons. One is that there were not enough Iraqi and
American forces because the United States usually left one location
for another after completing a mission, while anti-US armed
insurgents returned to that place soon afterwards.
The other reason is that US forces suffered from too many
limitations due to lack of reinforcements as well as frequent
distractions and foot-dragging by the Iraqi government.
Bush's new strategy was formed to address these problems.
First, the US raised a series of demands on the Iraqi
government, including sending more military forces and national
police to Baghdad. He wants enough of them staying in the city
after the insurgents are cleared out but they must not exert any
political or religious interference in the "security plan for
Baghdad".
The new strategy also demands that the Iraqi government assume
responsibility for the security of all the country's provinces and
cities by November this year, while the United States will increase
economic and military aid to Iraq, including military training.
Second, the United States will send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
Of these, 4,000 will be stationed in Anbar Province, home to
Al-Qaida's command base in the country, while the rest will go to
Baghdad for joint actions with Iraqi forces. The United States will
also increase its naval presence in the Middle East.
In addition, Bush served a stern warning to Iran and Syria,
accusing them of allowing terrorists to enter Iraq freely from
their sides of the borders with Iraq. He also accused Iran of
providing military supplies to anti-US insurgents in Iraq. Now the
US military will destroy this evil network, says Bush, adding that
America will not allow Iran to develop nuclear arms or take control
of the Gulf region.
The Bush administration's Iraq policy has suffered serious
setbacks since the war began four years ago. The US forces in Iraq
are now faced with a painful dilemma where neither advance nor
retreat bodes well for them. The "new strategy" can be seen as an
attempt to break free, though its prospects appear seriously
questionable.
First, there are already 132,000 US troops in Iraq. If this many
men and women could not maintain security, why should people
believe the additional 21,500 will have the magic power to do it?
This is a question in people's minds throughout America.
As soon as the US president announced his new strategy for Iraq,
House majority whip James Clyburn expressed strong opposition to
Bush's reinforcement plan, arguing that 21,500 additional troops
are too few to make a difference in Iraq but too many Americans
will be thrown in harm's way. As for the Iraqis, Prime Minister
Nouri al-Maliki's administration is of course not in a position to
openly oppose the US reinforcement plan, but his aides have been
saying that the government is very cautious about it.
They are concerned that more US troops in Iraq, especially in
Baghdad, will lead to tougher actions by the United States in Iraq
and that runs counter to what the Shi'ite-led Iraqi government's
intent, which is to reduce the US authority in Iraqi affairs and
let the war develop the way they want it to.
Second, Bush's new strategy depends a great deal on the Iraqi
government, which is composed of people who represent the interests
of their own religious sects and ethnic groups more than those of
the whole nation. To some extent this is one of the reasons there
are currently so many sectarian conflicts and killings going on in
Iraq.
It was precisely because of this complication that the Iraqi
government's performance has been rather poor in keeping the
situation stable. Are people supposed to believe the Iraqi
government will become tough and effective from now on just because
Bush has put more pressure on Maliki by telling him that US support
is conditional? I am afraid that is too optimistic.
Third, the numerous Iraqi militiamen are a huge liability to the
country's security. In one of his speeches made before the Iraqi
parliamentary elections in December 2005, Bush said the anti-US
armed insurgency consisted of three groups: Al-Qaida, remnants of
the Saddam regime and disgruntled Sunni Muslims. This observation
is basically correct but should have included Shi'ite extremists
such as al-Sadr's Mehdi Army.
It is no exaggeration to call Iraq a nation of fighters. And
they are equipped with not only light firearms but also with
formidable weapons such as heavy rockets. Not long ago, the Iraqi
government wanted to disarm the militia forces, but the initiative
touched off immediate opposition. Some critics asserted that those
who had fought Saddam's army for years should not be mentioned in
the same breath as the newly formed militias.
Now Bush is saying it doesn't matter which faction you belong
to, you deserve to die if you fight against US forces. It has been
alleged that Maliki also let al-Sadr's Mehdi Army know they must
lay down their arms or taste the full wrath of the Iraqi Army
backed by its US counterpart. Awesome! But that would mean another
Iraq war if US forces go after those militias, a war with an
outcome very difficult to predict.
Maliki previously prevented several US attempts to crush
al-Sadr's Mehdi Army. How his government and military would react
to a similar US move now would be very interesting.
?
Fourth, Iraq's problem is not just security, which is only the
surface issue. Underneath it is a power struggle among various
interest groups, including fierce fights over the control of oil
resources. One of the demands Bush has made of the Iraqis is
reasonable distribution of the country's oil revenue. So far years
of effort have not been able to accomplish success in these areas.
To assume success can be achieved in the coming months sounds more
like a fantasy than anything else.
And lastly, it requires the cooperation of other Islamic
countries in the region, including Iran and Syria. Now Bush has
warned these two nations to back off over Iraqi affairs, totally
forgetting that the United States has already made these warnings a
number of times without success. Will the two countries
miraculously wash their hands of what's happening in Iraq this time
around?
You don't need me to answer the question.
Bush's latest public address stirred up Congress like a stick
poked into a hornets' nest. The Democrats and some moderate
Republicans immediately took him to task over the specifics. Let's
wait and see just how Bush's new strategy for Iraq will help US
forces "break free".
Tao Wenzhao is a senior researcher with the Chinese Academy
of Social Sciences.
(China Daily January 17, 2007)
