--------- fwd by Minja -------------
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/newsviews.cgi/The%20Middle%
20East/Iraq/Bush_Plays_Va_Banque.html?seemore=y
Chronicles Online
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Bush Plays Va Banque
by Srdja Trifkovic
***If Mr. Bush lacks the good sense to find speechwriters capable of
coming up with new clichés for such important occasions, it is hardly
surprising that his new plans, strategies, or blueprints for Iraq
also look barely distinguishable from those preceding it.***
"Va banque" is a risky strategy deployed most commonly by emotionally
unstable or inexpert players, usually with disastrous results. In
essence it means risking the balance of oneâ??s capital on a single
card, or roll of dice, or spin of the wheel. In extremis a seasoned
pro may resort to it, but usually he will do so in conjunction with a
radical change of strategy to reverse a losing streak and on the
basis of a rational calculation of costs and benefits of his action.
On Wednesday night President George W. Bush announced he was going to
play va banque in Iraq. Evaluated dispassionately and without
prejudice to the many lies and errors that had preceded tha war, his
plan suffers from two major weaknesses. It does not entail any major,
let alone radical, change of strategy. Its one novelty â?? the
commitment to exert more pressure on the Iraqi government to meet
certain political objcetives â?? makes the success or failure of the
plan contingent upon the behavior of local actors over whom Mr. Bush
has diminishing control, and whose motives and goals are very
different to his own.
While it contained many elements present on previous such occasions,
it has escaped most commentatorsâ?? attention that Mr. Bushâ??s speech
had an uncanny semblance to his address at the U.S. Naval Academy in
Annapolis in November 2005, when he unveiled his "clear strategy for
victory." The largely-forgotten "National Strategy for Victory in
Iraq," outlined by Mr. Bush to the graduating class of Navy cadets,
rested on three pillars:
"On the political side . . . we're helping the Iraqis build a free
society with inclusive democratic institutions that will protect the
interests of all Iraqis . . . engage those who can be persuaded to
join the new Iraq, and marginalize those who never will. On the
security side, coalition and Iraqi security forces are on the
offensive against the enemy . . . leaving Iraqi forces to hold
territory taken from the enemy, and following up with targeted
reconstruction to help Iraqis rebuild their lives. As we fight the
terrorists, we're working to build capable and effective Iraqi
security forces, so they can take the lead in the fightâ??and
eventually take responsibility for the safety and security of their
citizens without major foreign assistance."
To that end, Mr. Bush added, out, "we have increased our force levels
in Iraq to 160,000â??up from 137,000" to fight "an enemy without a
conscience." As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political
process advances, he went on, "we will be able to decrease our troop
levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the
terrorists." But, he concluded,
"victory in Iraq will demand the continued determination and resolve
of the American people . . . In Iraq, there will not be a signing
ceremony on the deck of a battleshipâ?¦ We will not turn that country
over to the terrorists and put the American people at risk. Iraq will
be a free nation and a strong ally in the Middle Eastâ??and this will
add to the security of the American people."
One year, two months and two thousand American lives later, last
Wednesday Mr. Bush announced that U.S. force levels in Iraq would be
increased to 153,500â??up from 132,000. We are still engaged in a
struggle against "the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq [who] are
without conscience," that struggle is still decisive for "the global
war on terror â?? and our safety here at home." And once again we were
told, word for word, that "there will be no surrender ceremony on the
deck of a battleship."
If Mr. Bush lacks the good sense to find speechwriters capable of
coming up with new clichés for such important occasions, it is hardly
surprising that his new plans, strategies, or blueprints for Iraq
also look barely distinguishable from those preceding it. The "deck
of the battleship" metaphor displays a doubly patronizing attitude:
it assumes that the public will not notice, or mind, that it is being
fed recycled platitudes; and â?? worse stillâ??that the public does not
grasp the intricacies of a challenge as complex and multi - layered
as Iraq.
Mr. Bush's diagnosis for the failure to provide security to ordinary
Iraqis thus far is that "there were not enough Iraqi and American
troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists
and insurgents," but this time Iraqi and American forces will have a
green light to enter those neighborhoods, and Iraqi Prime Minister
Nouri al-Maliki "has pledged that political or sectarian interference
will not be tolerated":
"I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders
that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government
does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of
the American people â?? and it will lose the support of the Iraqi
people... America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it
has announced . . . America will change our approach to help the
Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks."
What Mr. Bush fails to grasp is that there is no "Iraqi people" as a
coherent polity that shares the sense of common destiny and common
aspirations. Mr. al-Maliki's pledges are worthless. He and his fellow
Shiite Islamist politicians don't give a hoot for "the Iraqi people"
outside the confines of their own community. They are not concerned
about the support of "the American people" either â?? if that support
(or lack thereof) was capable of being translated into actions and
policies on the ground, American forces would be withdrawing from
Iraq, rather than increasing their numbers.
Iraq is in the grip of a vicious civil war, whether Mr. Bush accepts
that term or not. By condoning the indecently hasty execution
("lynching" would be a more appropriate term) of Saddam Hussein, Mr.
Bush has effectively taken sides in that war.
The Shiite leadership, thoroughly penetrated by Iranian agents and
Muqtada al-Sadr's radicals, will not be intimidated by Mr. Bush's
threat of disengagement. He has already finished the job for them. If
and when the withdrawal is completed â?? and it will come, under terms
probably even less favorable to American interests and American
reputation than today â?? Iraq will disintegrate into three ethno-
sectarian units. President Ahmadinejad of Iran or his successor will
be the main beneficiary. Had Mr. Bush exerted his pressure on al-
Maliki's predecessors when the Badr Brigades and al-Mahdi's Army were
first detected embedded inside Iraq's new security services, it could
have worked. Now it is too late.
*********************************
Dr. S. Trifkovic, Foreign Affairs Editor
CHRONICLES: A Magazine of American Culture
928 N Main Street, Rockford, IL 61103
www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/newsviews.cgi
www.trifkovic.mysite.com
