Analysis: Bad Reviews for Iraq Policy

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - 'Stay the course' is gone. In its place: 'constant readjustment' of tactics, a timeline to crush Shiite death squads and inducements like unconditional amnesty for Sunni insurgents.

Polls of Iraqis show them eager for American troops to leave. U.S. public opinion surveys find that only about 34 percent of voters support the war effort.

With such broad disaffection and midterm elections coming Nov. 7, the Bush administration has spent the past few weeks in an intense search for a new face to put on the conflict, in which more than 2,800 U.S. troops now have died.

While American voters will make their judgement of the administration effort in less than two weeks, the newly burnished policy already is getting bad reviews in Baghdad. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki took issue only a day after it was unveiled, implying portions of it were a challenge the sovereingty of his five-month-old government.

First, he rejected U.S. talk of an ill-defined timeline to curb violence.

"I affirm that this government represents the will of the people and no one has the right to impose a timetable on it."

Then he said the plan was prompted by American electoral politics:

"I am sure that this is not the official policy of the U.S. government, but it is a results of the election race going on and we are not much concerned with it."

It was not known if al-Maliki raised the objections out of conviction or to mollify his Shiite Muslim political base - or both. Maliki's political position is a delicate balance, one that sometimes frustrates his U.S. backers.

At a Wednesday news conference, President Bush said Iraq's government "must respect the fact that we've got patience, but not unlimited patience."

Even before that veiled warning, al-Maliki felt compelled earlier this month to ask Bush if he were in danger of losing American backing. Bush reported that he reassured the Iraqi leader that he had no plans to pull troops out of Iraq and told him to ignore rumors the United States intended to enforce a deadline for Baghdad to rein in sectarian violence.

But al-Maliki's concern was not unfounded, given remarks by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the start of her Iraq tour at the start of the month.

"The security situation is not one that can be tolerated and it is not one that is being helped by political inaction," Rice said.

Officials close to Al-Maliki, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said he had been told by the Americans that he had until the end of the year to make significant progress in ridding the streets of sectarian death squads or face the quiet withdrawal of U.S. backing.

If true, it would be a tough move for the United States given its stated objective of leaving behind a democratic Iraq. If only rumor, it still reflected the precariousness of the U.S.-Iraqi relationship.

The administration appears to be losing patience in the 44th month of the war partly because of the big jump in U.S. deaths. As of Thursday, 96 service members had been killed in combat this month, the highest toll since October 2005, when the same number of U.S. troops died. Only three months have seen higher death figures since the war began.

As the toll mounted, administration officials and the U.S. military increasingly sought to blame at least a portion of the skyrocketing bloodshed on the political savvy of insurgent forces.

Their argument holds that Sunni fighters had stepped up attacks to kill more Americans in a bid to turn U.S. voters more deeply against the conflict, and thus harm Republican chances and weaken Bush. Further, the reasoning claims, insurgents believed a Democratic-controlled Congress would more quickly force an end to U.S. involvement.

"In regards to this spike in violence ... it's no coincidence that the surge in attacks against coalition forces and the subsequent increase in U.S. casualties coincides with our increased presence on the streets of Baghdad and the run-up to the American midterm elections," U.S. military spokesman Gen. William B. Caldwell said a week ago.

"The enemy knows that killing innocent people and Americans will garner headlines and create a sense of frustration."

Last week, Bush agreed that a New York Times columnist might have been right to compare surging Iraqi violence to the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam.

The Viet Cong drive against American and South Vietnamese soldiers was seen as a turning point in U.S. public opinion against that war and responsible for President Lyndon Johnson's decision months later not to seek a second term.

"He could be right," the president said of analogy drawn by Thomas Friedman. "There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election."

But some who closely follow the war find that explanation insufficient, if not a distortion of the facts.

"Iraqis are fighting Iraqis for Iraqi reasons, not to influence elections or force the U.S. out of Iraq," Center for Strategic and International Studies scholar Anthony Cordesman said in a recent paper.

"This has built up for more than two years, and any reference to a 'Tet offensive' requires both a massive ignorance of the realities in Iraq and an equal ignorance of the realities in Vietnam," he said.
MyWay

You know I was not going to say anything, but every time the president talks about "constant readjustment' of tactics" it sounds like the terrorist are running the show, and they are playing catch up. It's the stupidest thing that could possibly come out of his mouth. Like I said I was going to keep quiet because to me it sounds so harmful to the war effort that I was not going to say anything. But the dammed fool just keeps going on and on about Changing tactics. I don't know who the presidents speech writer is, but he should be fired. I bet it come from that Snow guy.