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)