War With Syria and Iran = Peace With Iraq?

William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security

Seek out and destroy.

If there's anything in the President Bush's remarks tonight that we didn't already know or didn't anticipate him saying militarily about Iraq, it is his evident willingness to go to war with Syria and Iran to seek peace.

Speaking about the two countries tonight, the president said that the United States wiill "seek out and destroy" those who are providing material support to our enemies.

It is only a threat. But it is a far cry from the diplomatic proposals floated just last month for making Syria and Iran part of the solution. Can the president really be saying that we are willing to risk war with the two countries, and even attack elements inside them, to achieve peace in Iraq?

In his speech to the nation, the president announced that he would send 21,500 additional U.S. soldiers and Marines to Iraq, a force that he said will deliver the necessary punch needed to quell sectarian violence in Baghdad and western Iraq, as well as signal to the Iraqi government that this is really, really the last chance.

Failure in Iraq would be a "disaster" for the United States, President Bush said, adding that success there would determine the direction of the global war on terror.

The Iraqi government, the president said, will work with the U.S. to regain control of Baghdad, acknowledge and put pressure on both Sunni and Shi'a parties, intensify its effort to build a politically neutral security force, reform its Ministry of Interior and police force, and "plan and fund" the demobilization of independent militias. U.S. and Iraqi forces meanwhile will continue counter-terror operations against al Qaeda and counter-insurgency operations against Sunni and Shi'a outliers.

On the ground, U.S. commanders will be given more flexibility and more resources to build up "moderate" elements to take on extremists. In Baghdad and Al Anbar province, which includes the combat zones of Fallujah and Ramadi, the United States will accelerate reconstruction spending to speed economic activity.

In the pesident's speech and in fact sheets, background briefings, and Power Point presentations on the administration's new Iraq "strategy," the tone is one of hope and promise. Everyone, the U.S. included, is committing to the program and redoubling their efforts. One doesn't have to be too cynical to note the definite feel-good element to it all.

The list of things that the U.S. is going to do - some partially borrowed from the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group - sound eminently reasonable. Take "vigorously engage Arab states." It's a good idea to vest Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and others in stability in Iraq. (Oh, Turkey is included in the strategy too, in the U.S. pledge to increase its effort to counter the PKK, the Kurdish separatist/terrorist organization that operates in a virtual sanctuary in northern Iraq).

As for the specifics of the new troop deployment, the President is committing five additional U.S. combat brigade teams to Baghdad. Iraq will then add three army brigades, bringing the Baghdad total to nine Army brigades and nine Iraqi national police brigades, as well as local police. Two additional Marine Corps battalions (about 4,000 troops) will also augment the U.S.-dominated effort in Al Anbar province.

The new plan and strategy will "change America's course in Iraq," President Bush said. With sufficient boots on the ground, the U.S. and Iraq will be able to clear AND hold neighborhoods -- including Shi'a neighborhoods U.S. and Iraqi forces currently do not operate.

Eighty percent of the sectarian violence in Iraq, the President said, occurs within a 30-mile radius of Baghdad. A lot of time and energy has gone into the command structure and operating procedures for the augmented forces. The entirety of the success rests with Baghdad, pure and simple.

Some of the fine print: The additional U.S. forces will only move into theater, the White House says, over time. The Iraqis will deploy their three additional brigades to Baghdad within a little more than a month. The U.S. will deploy one additional brigade by February 1st, two more by February 15th. That's the addition of about one division-equivalent (presumably the 3rd Infantry Division from Georgia) within about 30 days. The other two brigades will deploy in March and April.

"There is no indefinite commitment to [the] U.S. presence in Iraq," a senior official said this morning, briefing the plan.

The missing element here, of course, is how Iraq will respond to all of this: How will the shaky government and an unreliable military and police force respond, how will moderates and normal citizens respond, how will Sunni and Shi'a militias respond, how will extremists, terrorists, foreign fighters and criminals respond.

And how will Syria and Iran react? President Bush implicitly accused the two of providing sanctuary and material support for violent elements in Iraq. There is an ominous element here: When the President pledged to "seek out and destroy the networks supporting our enemies in Iraq," to me, that means the threat of strikes on targets in those two countries.

The President giveth peace and he taketh away.

By William M. Arkin | January 10, 2007; 9:55 PM ET | Category: Iraq