But, like the Christmas bombing of Hanoi in 1972, which was the last gasp of the imperial American effort to control Vietnam, the New Year’s escalation in Baghdad in 2007 is probably the last gasp of Bush’s own imperial misadventure.
-- Robert Dreyfus, Bush channels Nixon, Tompaine.common sense, January 11, 2007

Iraq is in a grievous mess. Nothing can be more divided than the so-called unity government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Democratically elected Shia majority government headed by al-Maliki is out to emasculate the Iraqi Sunnis in a vengeful spirit. They are motivated to retaliate for the atrocities which were inflicted on them by Saddam Hussein. Accommodation of Sunnis and sharing power with them is not part of their agenda.

Saddam has been disgracefully hanged. He was taunted by the Shia supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr when the noose was tightened around his neck. They chanted Muqtadq, Muqtada in his face. President Bush acknowledged that the way Saddam was hanged was as shameful as the atrocities in Abu Ghraib. “I asked the president if he had seen the execution video of Saddam Hussein, Brian Williams, the NBC news anchor, said on the ‘Nightly News.’ He indicated that he had and said in his view the way it was handled ranked just below the Abu Ghraib prison scandal,” ( Sabrina Tavernise and John F. Burns, Promising Troops Where They Aren’t Really Wanted, The New York Times, January 11, 2007)

The Shia-Sunni divide is so deep that there is little hope it can be bridged by al-Maliki’s government. And it is doubtful if al-Maliki really wants to bridge this chasm. Historically, Shias and Sunnis have not ever lived peacefully with each other; the stronger faction had always dominated the weaker. American army in Iraq is haplessly trapped in the sectarian civil war. This kind of sectarian trouble was foreseen by President Bush Sr., who wisely had abstained from occupying Iraq in the first Gulf war. President George W. Bush ignored the sane advice of his father’s well-experienced advisers and went ahead to occupy Iraq. The euphoria of a quick victory was however short lived; the inevitable happened and has thrust President Bush’s government into a quagmire from which it doesn’t know how to extricate itself without losing face. In fact, it is sinking deeper and deeper into it. This is how the political analysts, the Democrat majority in the Congress, and several of the Republican senators view the new increase of American troops (surge) in Iraq.

In his new surge plan, President Bush said, “The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad’s nine districts. When these are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort – along with local police. The Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations – conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints and going door-to-door to gain trust of Baghdad residents.” Superficially, this sounds hunky-dory. However, the fact is that the Iraqi army and police are dominated by Shias who will do everything to eliminate Sunnis and protect their faith-brethren every time that they can.

Commenting on President Bush’s plan, Robert Dreyfus observed, “In other words, U.S. forces will bolster the death squads operated by Iraqi army and police units, whose sectarian atrocities have been widely chronicled. The ‘patrols’ and checkpoints they establish have gained a reputation for murderous, anti-Sunni massacres and kidnappings, and it is certain that by ‘going door-to-door’ they will do anything but ‘gain the trust of Baghdad residents,’ at least if they are Sunnis.”

President Bush’s surge plan is unpopular with majority of the American people, almost all of the Democrats in the Congress, several Republican senators, many Republican Vietnam veterans, and generally with the news media. Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee, the new Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice were mercilessly grilled by the members of the Committee, both Democrats and Republicans. Republican senator Chuck Hagels of Nebraska, a presidential hopeful in the 2008 elections, quipped, “I think this speech given by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out.” It seems that President Bush’s surge plan is his last desperate ‘hurrah’; if it didn’t work, he would have no option but to pull out from Iraq. In order to impress the criticality of his plan on Nuri al-Maliki, he has told him that the plan is not open ended.

This is the first time that he has insinuated that he wouldn’t be in Iraq for “as long as it takes.” It is indeed a very bitter pill for him to swallow because he had never accepted the possibility of failure in Iraq. His initial plan was to remain in occupation of Iraq permanently and not to pull out. Continued occupation in the present circumstances is not easy and it is dangerous also to leave Iraq entangled in its present sectarian civil war. Evacuation of American troops from Iraq may open the door for regional conflagration. The neighboring Sunni countries will come to the aid of Iraqi Sunnis and Iran will enter the arena openly to support the Shias. Thus there is danger that the entire Middle East will be engulfed in civil war.

The American public is rightly concerned about the chaos in Iraq and they believe that it is not for American army to fight a civil war; let Iraqis sort out their problems themselves. If they cannot live peacefully together, let them fight it out. They are incensed at President Bush for not telling the truth to them. He kept on telling them, it’s not that “we can win in Iraq, we’re winning.”

According to Yahoo! News (Tom Raum, Bush war plan draws fire on Capitol Hill, January 11, 2007), Bill Nelson, D-Fla., noted his own past support for the administration on the war but said he could not continue. He declared, ‘I have not been told the truth over and over again by administration witnesses, and the American people have not been told the truth.”

Is there a chance that this new venture might succeed? It is not very likely because President Bush is depending on al-Maliki’s cooperation and help. Al-Maliki does not seem to be sincere and is probably partially responsible for the ongoing civil war. If he did not deliver in the past on his promises of even-handedness, what hope is there this time around? Many Shias in his cabinet are outright against the surge plan. According to Tavernise and Burns (quoted above), “The government believes there is no need for extra troops from the American side, Haidar al-Abadi, a Parliament member and close associate of Mr. Maliki, said Wednesday. The existing troops can do the job.” They want America to leave Iraq so that they could settle the score with the Iraqi Sunnis. Under these circumstances, there is little hope for success.

There is another reason also. Many experts believe that a surge of some 20,000 troops is too little and too late. According to Fred Kagan, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, “We need to cut through the confusion. Bringing security to Baghdad – the essential precondition for political compromise, national reconciliation and economic development – is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail

The key to the success is to change the military mission – instead of preparing for transition to Iraqi control, that mission should be to bring security to the Iraqi population. Surges aimed at accelerating the training of Iraqi forces will fail, because rising sectarian violence will destroy Iraq before the new forces can bring it under control,” (Jack Keane and Frederick W. Kagan, The Right Type of Surge, washingtonpost.com, December 27, 2006).