Bush Still Looking For That Elusive Plan To Win The War In Iraq That Probably Doesn't Exist

One of the last of the "true believers" in the Iraq War has to be the main planner if it, George Bush. By stalling off his planned address to the nation about a change in policy to January gives time for Bush to allow the 8 month long Iraq Study Report recommendations to die a death in the short term memory shortcomings of the American public. It also gives Bush time to propose another unrealistic policy such as increasing troops in Iraq by 30,000 to 100,000 more than the current 140,000 levels in some sort of a desperate last ditch attempt to "win" this unwinnable war.

Besides raising troop levels, which is sure to be very unpopular with the public and fly in the face of the voter's message of the November elections, Bush may seek to replace the main generals involved in the Iraq War effort with some hardliners who believe that the war can still be won. Whether some latter day General Curtis Lemay type military leaders still exist in this day and age, who still believe that you can bomb your way out of any problem is a highly questionable notion. Many generals are more or less reasonable persons and often far more pragmatic about the situation in Iraq than Bush would probably want to hear. At some point even the generals view the situation as hopeless for real world reasons.

In an ideal world, it would certainly have been far better if the people of Iraq would have thrown roses at the feet of invading American and British forces after the 2003 war, as Donald Rumsfeld famously mispredicted. But it was only a matter of time before dead-enders such as Baathists, insurgents such as Al Qaeda agents and others would start a deadly cycle that Sunni and Shiite militia groups would eventually join. It was only a matter of time before the 1,300 year old conflict between the Sunni and Shiite sects would surface in this artificial nation created after WWI by Winston Churchill after oil was discovered in the region. Three Muslim sects with nothing in common were thrown together by Churchill in this new post WWI British occupation state that lasted until the 1958 rebellion in Iraq. This rebellion was inspired by 1956 Gamel Nasser Arab Socialist rebellion related to the Suez Canal rebuff of the British occupation forces in Egypt. After this 1956 rebellion in Egypt, Britain quickly began to lose all colonial occupation control in the MidEast.

In all fairness, Bush may now fear that the consequences of failure in Iraq are so high that no other course but victory is acceptable. Saudi Arabia apparently raised the stakes by threatening to put it's troops into Iraq to fight on behalf of the Sunni forces, which could only encourage Iran to put in it's forces and fight on behalf of the Shiites. The resulting regional war would probably end up with the Saudi oil fields in flames from Iranian missiles before very long, cutting off the MidEast oil supply to the Western world and only inviting Western nation's involvement and a possible world war. Private Saudi support for Sunni militia groups already exists, and Iran is certainly involved with some Shiite militia groups already. Rather than these neighbors of Iraq willing to act as peacekeepers, their role would quickly escalate to direct combatants for the Sunni and Shiite sects of the Muslim faith. Only 15% of the world's Muslims are Shiites, and Iran would have good reason to want to defend one of the only nations in the world, Iraq, with a Shiite majority, besides themselves.

Bush has a personal moltivation to want to see Iraq succeed not only for his place in history, but also because an American withdrawal will likely not result in sectarian peace in Iraq, but instead open up the serious opportunity for a serious regional war. This only illustrates how badly the Bush policy in Iraq has destabilized the region. Bush may be trying to desperately find a way to salvage this disasterous policy in Iraq. But likely too many people are unemployed in Iraq, up to 60%, too many support sectarian militia groups, and no easy way exists to change the minds of a public in Iraq where way too many people support lawlessness and the sectarian violence.

The ideal solution would be for far more persons in Iraq to support civil order, and oppose sectarian violence, and for domestic Iraqi military and police to maintain order, with all outside nations such as the U.S., Britain, Iran and Saudi Arabia out of Iraq. But how we ever get to this point is the vexing question. Bush continues to look for U.S. military solutions to resolve the situation in Iraq that probably don't exist. This is one complex Iraqi society social attitudes problem the U.S. cannot bomb it's way out of like WWII battles planned by General Curtis Lemay. A desire change among those living in Iraq is the key to peace. People in Iraq need to support civil order in their nation and need to be able to honestly and ethicly police their own nation. The U.S. or no other outside nation can really do this for Iraq, despite the political instincts of Bush that still seems to think that the U.S. can fix what we helped to break. Bush continues to look for that military solution that probably doesn't really exist, and will propose more grossly failing policies in January that will only eventually end the region up with the serious regional war that the world does not need.