Page 1 of 2 SPEAKING FREELY One last chance for sanity in Iraq
By Ramzy Baroud
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have
Please click hereif you are interested in
US President George W Bush's new war strategy due to be officially announced on
Wednesday, which will likely meet an uphill battle at the now
Democrat-controlled Congress, is a slap in
the face of the majority of American voters, and indeed the democratic process.
The majority of American voters 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.
According to the latest public opinion polls, nearly three out of four US
respondents now say they disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq, while
confidence in his overall leadership has fallen to record lows.
Bush is yet to learn, however, that the United States is not Rome, and
strengths and weakness are no longer measured alone by a nation's number of
combatants. The past 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-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 absence, Bush began to reshuffle his
war generals in a way that is consistent with neither the wishes of the
American people nor the majority of Congress.
Though the Iraq strategy was scheduled to be laid out officially on Wednesday,
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 early ominous sign came when Bush signaled his intentions for a troop surge
in Iraq, with an additional 20,000-40,000 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 standards - 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 Republican Party, are opposed to such a move. That rejection was
articulated in an open letter released on Friday, 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 the 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.
Bush is also expected to request US$100 billion in addition to the $75 billion
already approved by last year's Republican-led Congress, to fund US military
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal 2007.
Disgruntled Democrats are not alone in objecting to Bush's imprudent proposal;
the military leadership also finds it reckless and futile. Therefore, top army
brass Generals George Casey and John Abizaid, who are deeply skeptical
regarding increasing troop numbers in Iraq, are on their way to be replaced by
General David Petraeus, a war supporter who participated in the March 2003
invasion of Iraq, is set to take over from Casey as the top ground commander.
Moreover, the president reportedly intends to endorse William Fallon to head US
Central Command. The choice of Fallon, according to Tim Reid, The Times of
London's reporter in Washington, as the top military commander in the Middle
East - to replace Abizaid - came as a big surprise to the Pentagon, for the
former is a naval officer with little experience in that region.
But things will fall neatly in 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 when the US Army seems to be
stretched to its maximum 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