Remember six weeks ago, when Iraqi and Bush administration officials announced a new plan to bring some stability to [tag]Baghdad[/tag]? It failed. But don’t worry; there’s a new plan.
Saying the security situation in Baghdad remained “terrible,” [tag]President[/tag] [tag]Bush[/tag] announced an agreement with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-[tag]Maliki[/tag] on Tuesday to significantly strengthen the United States military presence in the city.
The announcement, presented at a joint news conference during Mr. Maliki’s first visit to the [tag]White House[/tag] since taking office in May, was a tacit admission that the Iraqi government had not succeeded in bringing stability to the capital, and that any major withdrawal of American troops soon remained unlikely.
Under the new security plan, devised by American military commanders in consultation with the Iraqis, some 4,000 United States troops would move into Baghdad, to join the same number of Iraqi counterparts. The United States has about 128,000 troops in Iraq, approximately 7,200 of them in Baghdad, according to military officials there.
[tag]Stephen Hadley[/tag], Bush’s national security advisor, said the new plan is really just “phase two” of the original plan. The New York Times noted, however, that “there was no [tag]Phase II[/tag] in the previous plan.”
“This is more like Plan B,” one of Hadley’s associated conceded. “Six weeks ago, we were talking about pulling American [tag]troops[/tag] back from the city streets, not putting more of them out there.”
If none of this inspires you to have confidence in the administration’s handling of the crisis, wait until you see how thoroughly [tag]Maureen Dowd[/tag] skewers the latest approach to security in Baghdad.
If you turn on TV, you see missiles flying, bodies lying, nuclear missiles unleashed and a slaughterhouse in Iraq. But don’t despair, because yesterday President Bush announced the establishment of “a joint committee to achieve Iraqi self-reliance.” He called it a “new partnership,” as if it were some small business.
Isn’t it a little late, in July 2006, to be launching a new partnership for such an old mess? Isn’t it a little late to realize that Baghdad, a city where 300 garbage collectors have been killed in the last six months, according to press reports, has spun out of control?
In a press conference at the White House with his rogue puppet, the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, Mr. Bush explained that “our strategy is to remain on the offense, including in Baghdad.” Then why, after three and a half years, does our offense look so much like a defense?
The president sounded like a Jon Stewart imitation of himself when he assured reporters that Mr. Maliki had “a comprehensive plan” to pacify Iraq. “That’s what leaders do,” W. lectured, in a familiar refrain. “They see problems, they address problems, and they lay out a plan to solve the problems.”
If only the plan were a little less robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul, and a little more road-to-Damascus epiphany. Taking troops out of Anbar Province, where the insurgency is thriving, to quell violence in Baghdad doesn’t inspire confidence that the plan is truly “comprehensive.”
Seriously, “a joint committee to achieve Iraqi self-reliance”? Do you ever get the impression that these guys are just making it up as they go along?
