Less
Than Zero
by
William S. Lind
by William S. Lind
DIGG THIS
On
the surface, President Bush's Wednesday night speech adds up to
precisely nothing. The President said, "It is clear that we need
to change our strategy in Iraq," but the heart of his proposal,
adding more than 20,000 U.S. troops, represents no change in strategy.
It is merely another "big push," of the sort we have seen too often
in the past from mindless national and military leadership. Instead
of Dave Petraeus, why didn't Bush ask Sir Douglas Haig to take command?
Relying
on more promises from Iraq's nominal government and requiring more
performance from the Iraqi army and police are equally empty policies.
Both that government and its armed forces are mere fronts for Shiite
networks and their militias. If the new troops we send to Baghdad
work with Iraqi forces against the Sunni insurgents, we will be
helping the Shiites ethnically cleanse Baghdad of Sunnis. If, as
Bush suggested, our troops go after the Shiite militias in Baghdad
and elsewhere, we will find ourselves in a two-front war, fighting
Sunnis and Shiites both. We faced that situation briefly in 2004,
and we did not enjoy it.
All
this, again, adds up to nothing. But if we look at the President's
proposal more carefully, we find it actually amounts to less than
zero. It hints at actions that may turn a mere debacle into disaster
on a truly historic scale.
First,
Mr. Bush said that previous efforts to secure Baghdad failed for
two reasons, the second of which is that "there were too many restrictions
on the troops we did have." This suggests the new "big push" will
be even more kinetic that what we have done in the past, calling
in more firepower – airstrikes, tanks, artillery, etc. – in Baghdad
itself. Chuck Spinney has already warned that we may soon begin
to reduce Baghdad to rubble. If we do, and the President's words
suggest we will, we will hasten our defeat. In this kind of war,
unless you are going to take the "Hama model" and kill everyone,
success comes from de-escalation, not from escalation.
Second,
the President not only upped the ante with Syria and Iran, he announced
two actions that only make sense if we plan to attack Iran, Syria
or both. He said he has ordered Patriot missile batteries and another
U.S. Navy aircraft carrier be sent to the region. Neither has any
conceivable role in the fighting in Iraq. However, a carrier would
provide additional aircraft for airstrikes on Iran, and Patriot
batteries would in theory provide some defense against Iranian air
and missile attacks launched at Gulf State oil facilities in retaliation.
To
top it off, in questioning yesterday on Capitol Hill, the Tea Lady,
aka Secretary of State Rice, refused to promise the administration
would consult with Congress before attacking Iran or Syria.
As
I have said before and will say again, the price of an attack on
Iran could easily be the loss of the army we have in Iraq. No conceivable
action would be more foolish than adding war with Iran to the war
we have already lost in Iraq. Regrettably, it is impossible to read
Mr. Bush's dispatch of a carrier and Patriot batteries any other
way than as harbingers of just such an action.
The
final hidden message in Mr. Bush's speech confirms that the American
ship of state remains headed for the rocks. His peroration, devoted
once more to promises of "freedom" and democracy in the Middle East
and throughout the world, could have been written by the most rabid
of the neo-cons. For that matter, perhaps it was. So long as our
grand strategy remains that which the neo-cons represent and demand,
namely remaking the whole world in our own image, by force where
necessary, we will continue to fail. Not even the greatest military
in all of history, which ours claims to be but isn't, could bring
success to a strategy so divorced from reality. Meanwhile, Mr. Bush's
words give the lie to those who have hoped the neo-cons' influence
over the White House had ebbed. From Hell, or the World Bank which
is much the same place, Wolfi had to be smiling.
No,
Incurious George has offered no new strategy, nor new course, nor
even a plateau on the downward course of our two lost wars and failed
grand strategy. He has chosen instead to escalate failure, speed
our decline and expand the scope of our defeat. Headed toward the
cliff, his course correction is to stomp on the gas.
January
13, 2007
William
Lind [send him mail]
is an analyst based in Washington, DC.
Copyright
© 2007 William S. Lind
William
Lind Archives
|