Iraq ‘Surge’ Fails to Cover America’s Great Losses

It is possible that the current fighting in Baghdad, largely between American troops, supported by newly trained Iraqi units, and the insurgents will be regarded by future historians as the decisive phase in Iraq before the Americans flew back home.

It is a confused scene, particularly from afar, and most of the reports in the West come from embedded reporters who largely depend on official sources for what they write. It is remarkable that over 80 percent of the violence in Iraq occurs in Baghdad.

What I find most striking is how the insurgents keep on attacking day by day even as more American troops are committed. Car bombing is on the increase. Deadly armor-piercing explosive devices, that go off when a passive infra-red trigger system detects a passing vehicle, are killing many American soldiers.

It was just over a month ago that a suicide bomber — and there seems to be an inexhaustible supply — managed to get into Iraq’s Parliament building before blowing himself up. That building was supposed to have been one of the most secure in the country. On the same day a truck bomb destroyed the 1930s British-built Sarafiyah Bridge over the Tigris sending cars plunging down into the river.

At this stage it would be a mistake to claim categorically that the “surge”, announced by President George Bush in January, has either failed or succeeded. The last extra Brigade of American troops is not due to arrive until June. However, the early indications are that it does not look hopeful, although reprisal killings are down.

I wrote in this column in January that the president’s long-awaited new strategy for Iraq looked:

“...incredibly foolish. He is just reinforcing failure. It is one more desperate throw of the dice, one last attempt to cover his, and America’s, great losses.”

That remains my thinking.

The president should have listened to the wise advice of Gen. Colin Powell, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and secretary of state, who said on Dec. 17 that America was failing in Iraq, that troop increases should not take place and reductions should begin mid-2007. He knows what he is talking about unlike many of his former Republican colleagues who still have the ear of the president.

Last summer there was another major operation in Baghdad. At first it looked as if it might be successful. After a few weeks it was evident that some of the gunmen had simply hidden their weapons and were “resting”, while others had got into their cars and had moved away from the capital. In some parts of Iraq the bloodshed increased. Much the same thing is happening now. Diyala province is extremely dangerous for coalition forces.

President Bush defied not only world opinion but also much American opinion in going for a “surge”. Presumably he was hoping it would give the Americans and the Iraqi government a breathing space. If so the government of Nuri Al-Maliki has not taken proper advantage of it. What is the evidence that he is going to make the necessary concessions to the outnumbered Sunnis? Bearing in mind he relies on Shiite factions to prop up his government, what could the prime minister do in this regard if he really wanted to? No doubt the Iraqi Army, now larger than the entire British Army, is improving and so is the local police to a lesser extent, but in what way is the government improving? The solution to the violence initiated by Iraqi against Iraqi is a matter, above all, for the elected government of the country at this stage.

Of course, the United States plays down the overstretch of its forces. This is now an acute problem. Combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan are being extended from 12 months to 15 and this is bad for morale. Even finding a brigade to guard the supply route from Kuwait to Baghdad has become a problem for Gen. David Petraeus, the new ground commander in Iraq. The recent seizing of three American soldiers in an ambush required the redeployment of thousands of soldiers, leaving embarrassing space for the insurgents to take advantage of.

I suggest time is running out for the “surge” and Iraq in the United States. President Bush and his unpopular neoconservatives will only be around for less than two years.

The authority of the former is waning as is the influence in Washington of the latter. Today 60 percent of Americans think the war is a big mistake.

Not much remains of the coalition in Iraq, and after Gordon Brown takes over from Tony Blair on June 27 the new prime minister will be anxiously looking for ways to reduce British troops even further in southern Iraq, where they are achieving little and being regularly attacked.