Bush’s Old New Plan for Iraq

Last November’s Congressional elections dealt President George W. Bush a sharp rebuff over his Iraq policy. Shortly after the election, the Iraq Study Group offered a bipartisan formula for the gradual withdrawal of United States troops. But Bush rejected this, and persists in speaking of victory in Iraq – though it is unclear what that now means. Perhaps because Iraq will define his legacy, he has proven reluctant to let go at a point when his policy appears to be a disaster.

Now Bush will increase the number of American troops in Baghdad and Anbar Province and try to stabilize both the rising sectarian civil war and the Sunni insurgency. He has removed generals John Abizaid and George Casey, who were skeptical of a troop “surge,” and moved Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad, who was supposed to negotiate a political agreement in Iraq.

A number of the Democratic lawmakers who control the new Congress disagree with this approach. Some Democratic activists seek an immediate withdrawal and are pressing for Congress to cut off funding for the war, but that is unlikely. Congress is reluctant to be portrayed as failing to support troops in the field; while they will criticize, they will not block Bush’s plan.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To continue reading, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

required

By proceeding, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions.

Log in

http://prosyn.org/mzvjc0I;

Cookies and Privacy

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. To find out more, read our updated cookie policy and privacy policy.