President Bush stood before his impatient citizenry Wednesday night to make three admissions: I have not committed enough troops to a war this nation must win. I have not forced Iraqi leaders to push past their sectarian squabbles to secure the destiny of their nation. There have been mistakes, and they have been mine.
But he’s not giving up on the Iraq mission, he essentially told Americans, and neither should they. America cannot afford to have its enemies–or its friends–see it in retreat from Islamic extremists of many stripes. The U.S. is in a struggle with purveyors of terror and hate. Losing is not an option.
That’s the correct goal. But is the strategy Bush articulated Wednesday night the right way of achieving it?
Bush is sending more troops to Iraq. He’s sending something else as well: warnings to Iraqi leaders. He has told Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that American patience with his feckless government is not “open-ended.” He also has told al-Maliki that his country’s fractious political leadership must meet benchmarks for national reconciliation.
Bush set out the benchmarks. Where his address was disappointingly vague was in setting out the consequences. He said the Iraqis risk losing the support of the American people and the Iraqi people. But that appears already to have happened, at least on these shores.
America has set benchmarks before. And then it has retreated, fearful that too much pressure would undercut the Iraqi government and embolden the insurgency. The upshot: a confusing mix of signals from Washington to Baghdad.
Setting stark deadlines and consequences would have risks. The forces of chaos in Iraq could dial up their efforts as a way to ensure that the al-Maliki government would fail–and perhaps fall. That said, Baghdad needs to know it can’t rely on endless supplies of U.S. troops. America has no other leverage but military and economic aid. Bush must be ready to use that leverage–and make sure that the Iraqis know it.
Over the weekend came the first evidence that the Iraqis may be heeding Bush’s tough message. Al-Maliki declared that his Shiite-dominated government would crack down on Sunni Arab and Shiite militants with equal vigor. Now he must deliver. That puts a lot of pressure on al-Maliki, who has so far proven unable or unwilling to take action, particularly if it would rankle militia leader Moqtada Sadr, one of the prime minister’s most powerful backers.
At the same time, American military commanders need to make sure that pressure remains squarely on the Iraqis to bridge their differences. Another 21,000 American troops won’t make much of a difference in the Baghdad inferno if Iraqi troops don’t take charge to wipe out the militias and death squads, no matter the sect or affiliation. More troops won’t make much difference if Iraqi leaders don’t achieve political reconciliation. A strong government that represents all the people brings stability, not vice versa.
Bush faces skepticism from Congress and from weary Americans. A few weeks ago, former Secretary of State James Baker, a leader of the Iraq Study Group, noted that one word didn’t appear much, if at all, in his group’s report: Victory.
Wednesday night, the president made clear that “victory” is still in his vocabulary. It should be. Americans need a democratic Iraqi government, able to defend itself from extremists, in that difficult neighborhood. Iraq’s leaders need to be much more aggressive in securing and building the new nation that they and their people need just as much.
