Heroes and History

By DAVID BROOKS

Published: July 17, 2007
=================

I spent the first four days of last week interviewing senators about Iraq. The mood ranged from despondency to despair. Then on Friday I went to the Roosevelt Room in the White House to hear President Bush answer questions on the same subject. It was like entering a different universe.

Far from being beleaguered, Bush was assertive and good-humored. While some in his administration may be looking for exit strategies, he is unshakably committed to stabilizing Iraq. If Gen. David Petraeus comes back and says he needs more troops and more time, Bush will scrounge up the troops. If GeneralPetraeus says he can get by with fewer, Bush will support that, too.

Bush said he will get General Petraeus’s views unfiltered by the Pentagon establishment. He feels no need to compromise to head off opposition from Capitol Hill and is confident that he can rebuild popular support. “I have the tools,” he said.

I left the 110-minute session thinking that far from being worn down by the past few years, Bush seems empowered. His self-confidence is the most remarkable feature of his presidency.

All this will be taken as evidence by many that Bush is delusional. He’s living in a cocoon. He doesn’t see or can’t face how badly the war is going and how awfully he has performed.

But Bush is not blind to the realities in Iraq. After all, he lives through the events we’re not supposed to report on: the trips to Walter Reed, the hours and hours spent weeping with or being rebuffed by the families of the dead.

Rather, his self-confidence survives because it flows from two sources. The first is his unconquerable faith in the rightness of his Big Idea. Bush is convinced that history is moving in the direction of democracy, or as he said Friday: “It’s more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn’t exist.”

Second, Bush remains energized by the power of the presidency. Some presidents complain about the limits of the office. But Bush, despite all the setbacks, retains a capacious view of the job and its possibilities.

Conservatives are supposed to distrust government, but Bush clearly loves the presidency. Or to be more precise, he loves leadership. He’s convinced leaders have the power to change societies. Even in a place as chaotic as Iraq, good leadership makes all the difference.

When Bush is asked about military strategy, he talks about the leadership qualities of his top generals. Before, it was Generals Abizaid and Casey. Now, it’s Generals Petraeus and Odierno.

When Bush talks about world affairs more generally, he talks about national leaders. When he is asked to analyze Iraq, he talks about Maliki. With Russia, it’s Putin. With Europe, it’s Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown and the rest.

He is confident in his ability to read other leaders: Who has courage? Who has a chip on his shoulder? And he is confident that in reading the individual character of leaders, he is reading the tablet that really matters. History is driven by the club of those in power. When far-sighted leaders change laws and institutions, they have the power to transform people.

Many will doubt this, but Bush is a smart and compelling presence in person, and only the whispering voice of Leo Tolstoy holds one back.

Tolstoy had a very different theory of history. Tolstoy believed great leaders are puffed-up popinjays. They think their public decisions shape history, but really it is the everyday experiences of millions of people which organically and chaotically shape the destiny of nations — from the bottom up.

According to this view, societies are infinitely complex. They can’t be understood or directed by a group of politicians in the White House or the Green Zone. Societies move and breathe on their own, through the jostling of mentalities and habits. Politics is a thin crust on the surface of culture. Political leaders can only play a tiny role in transforming a people, especially when the integral fabric of society has dissolved.

If Bush’s theory of history is correct, the right security plan can lead to safety, the right political compromises to stability. But if Tolstoy is right, then the future of Iraq is beyond the reach of global summits, political benchmarks and the understanding of any chief executive.

Read full post and comments:
"Heroes and History" >>

Bush Meets With Democrats on Their Turf

President Bush spoke to House Democrats on Saturday.

By JEFF ZELENY

Published: February 4, 2007
The New York Times

WILLIAMSBURG, Va., Feb. 3 — In a rare appearance before an audience of Democrats, President Bush said Saturday that he did not question the patriotism of those who disagreed with his Iraq strategy. He also asked lawmakers not to let their disagreement over the war stir distrust and prevent them from finding consensus on immigration and other concerns.

“I welcome debate in a time of war, and I hope you know that,” Mr. Bush said. “Nor do I consider a belief that if you don’t happen to agree with me, you don’t share the same sense of patriotism I do. You can get that thought out of your mind if that’s what some believe.”

The president’s words were met with applause from House Democrats, who gathered here at a secluded resort along the James River for their annual issues conference. Newly in control of Congress, Democrats invited Mr. Bush to their retreat, eager to show that they could no longer be overlooked by the White House.

“The choice,” said Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, “is bipartisanship or stalemate.”

So for nearly two hours, Mr. Bush held forth with some of the very Democrats he has spent the better part of six years sparring with. He delivered a speech to members of Congress and their spouses, took questions in a private session and shook hands and posed for pictures.

“I’m looking forward to working with you,” Mr. Bush said, gesturing to those seated in the crowded ballroom. “I know you’ve probably heard that and you doubt whether it’s true — but it’s true. We’re going to do big things together.”

The political reality, of course, requires Mr. Bush to work with Democrats in the final two years of his presidency if he wants his legacy to include legislation like overhauling the nation’s immigration and health care systems, and beginning to curb America’s dependence on foreign oil.

“A great goal is a comprehensive immigration bill,” Mr. Bush said. “In order to get it done, it’s going to require members in the House and the Senate — Republican members, Democratic members — finding common ground, and the White House wants to help.”

The president’s speech, which lasted about 16 minutes, was interrupted by applause 21 times. Occasionally, the clapping seemed tepid, as some legislators looked across the room to see whether fellow Democrats were joining in. At other times, particularly if Mr. Bush delivered a self-deprecating line, the clapping boomed.

He began his remarks with such a moment, saying he meant no ill will at the State of the Union address when he referred to the lawmakers as members of the “Democrat Party.” The remark stirred a mini-dustup among some Democrats, who believed he was being pejorative.

“Look, my diction isn’t all that good,” Mr. Bush said. “I have been accused of occasionally mangling the English language, so I appreciate you inviting the head of the Republic Party.”

The event’s cordiality stood in contrast to the coming days on Capitol Hill, where the Congress is heading toward a confrontation with the White House over the war in Iraq. In a private question-and-answer session, according to lawmakers in the room, Mr. Bush said he intended to stick by his plan to send more troops to Iraq, but he added that he hoped the debate would be civil.

“We share a common goal,” Mr. Bush said in his public remarks, “and that is to keep America safe.”

In his weekly radio address on Saturday, Mr. Bush said the top priority of the budget he will submit to Congress on Monday was “keeping America safe and winning the war against extremists who want to destroy our way of life.” He intends to request nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars in military spending.

Mr. Bush did not wade deeply into the specifics of his budget proposals in his speech to Democrats, but he warned with a smile, “Some of it you’ll like, some of it you won’t.”

Before Mr. Bush arrived on Saturday, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the House majority leader, conceded that some Democrats were not thrilled about their guest speaker. “There was a little controversy about the president coming,” he said. “Some of our members said, ‘Well, why is he coming down?’ ”

But by the time he left the room, even some of Mr. Bush’s critics were applauding.

“Look, we don’t always agree,” Mr. Bush said. “That’s why we’re in different parties.”

Read full post and comments:
"Bush Meets With Democrats on Their Turf" >>

Bush Directive Increases Sway on Regulation

President Bush, seen here at the White House Monday, has signed an executive order that in effect increases his control over guidelines the government issues regarding health, safety, privacy and other issues.

By ROBERT PEAR

Published: January 30, 2007
The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 — President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.

This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats.

The White House said the executive order was not meant to rein in any one agency. But business executives and consumer advocates said the administration was particularly concerned about rules and guidance issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

In an interview on Monday, Jeffrey A. Rosen, general counsel at the White House Office of Management and Budget, said, “This is a classic good-government measure that will make federal agencies more open and accountable.”

Business groups welcomed the executive order, saying it had the potential to reduce what they saw as the burden of federal regulations. This burden is of great concern to many groups, including small businesses, that have given strong political and financial backing to Mr. Bush.

Consumer, labor and environmental groups denounced the executive order, saying it gave too much control to the White House and would hinder agencies’ efforts to protect the public.

Typically, agencies issue regulations under authority granted to them in laws enacted by Congress. In many cases, the statute does not say precisely what agencies should do, giving them considerable latitude in interpreting the law and developing regulations.

The directive issued by Mr. Bush says that, in deciding whether to issue regulations, federal agencies must identify “the specific market failure” or problem that justifies government intervention.

Besides placing political appointees in charge of rule making, Mr. Bush said agencies must give the White House an opportunity to review “any significant guidance documents” before they are issued.

The Office of Management and Budget already has an elaborate process for the review of proposed rules. But in recent years, many agencies have circumvented this process by issuing guidance documents, which explain how they will enforce federal laws and contractual requirements.

Peter L. Strauss, a professor at Columbia Law School, said the executive order “achieves a major increase in White House control over domestic government.”

“Having lost control of Congress,” Mr. Strauss said, “the president is doing what he can to increase his control of the executive branch.”

Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said: “The executive order allows the political staff at the White House to dictate decisions on health and safety issues, even if the government’s own impartial experts disagree. This is a terrible way to govern, but great news for special interests.”

Business groups hailed the initiative.

“This is the most serious attempt by any chief executive to get control over the regulatory process, which spews out thousands of regulations a year,” said William L. Kovacs, a vice president of the United States Chamber of Commerce. “Because of the executive order, regulations will be less onerous and more reasonable. Federal officials will have to pay more attention to the costs imposed on business, state and local governments, and society.”

Under the executive order, each federal agency must estimate “the combined aggregate costs and benefits of all its regulations” each year. Until now, agencies often tallied the costs and the benefits of major rules one by one, without measuring the cumulative effects.

Gary D. Bass, executive director of O.M.B. Watch, a liberal-leaning consumer group that monitors the Office of Management and Budget, criticized Mr. Bush’s order, saying, “It will result in more delay and more White House control over the day-to-day work of federal agencies.”

“By requiring agencies to show a ‘market failure,’ ” Dr. Bass said, “President Bush has created another hurdle for agencies to clear before they can issue rules protecting public health and safety.”

Wesley P. Warren, program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, who worked at the White House for seven years under President Bill Clinton, said, “The executive order is a backdoor attempt to prevent E.P.A. from being able to enforce environmental safeguards that keep cancer-causing chemicals and other pollutants out of the air and water.”

Business groups have complained about the proliferation of guidance documents. David W. Beier, a senior vice president of Amgen, the biotechnology company, said Medicare officials had issued such documents “with little or no public input.”

Hugh M. O’Neill, a vice president of the pharmaceutical company Sanofi-Aventis, said guidance documents sometimes undermined or negated the effects of formal regulations.

In theory, guidance documents do not have the force of law. But the White House said the documents needed closer scrutiny because they “can have coercive effects” and “can impose significant costs” on the public. Many guidance documents are made available to regulated industries but not to the public.

Paul R. Noe, who worked on regulatory policy at the White House from 2001 to 2006, said such aberrations would soon end. “In the past, guidance documents were often issued in the dark,” Mr. Noe said. “The executive order will ensure they are issued in the sunshine, with more opportunity for public comment.”

Under the new White House policy, any guidance document expected to have an economic effect of $100 million a year or more must be posted on the Internet, and agencies must invite public comment, except in emergencies in which the White House grants an exemption.

The White House told agencies that in writing guidance documents, they could not impose new legal obligations on anyone and could not use “mandatory language such as ‘shall,’ ‘must,’ ‘required’ or ‘requirement.’ ”

The executive order was issued as White House aides were preparing for a battle over the nomination of Susan E. Dudley to be administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget.

President Bush first nominated Ms. Dudley last August. The nomination died in the Senate, under a barrage of criticism from environmental and consumer groups, which said she had been hostile to government regulation. Mr. Bush nominated her again on Jan. 9.

With Democrats in control, the Senate appears unlikely to confirm Ms. Dudley. But under the Constitution, the president could appoint her while the Senate is in recess, allowing her to serve through next year.

Some of Ms. Dudley’s views are reflected in the executive order. In a primer on regulation written in 2005, while she was at the Mercatus Center of George Mason University in Northern Virginia, Ms. Dudley said that government regulation was generally not warranted “in the absence of a significant market failure.”

She did not return calls seeking comment on Monday.

Read full post and comments:
"Bush Directive Increases Sway on Regulation" >>

He’s in the Bunker Now

By FRANK RICH

Published: January 14, 2007
The New York Times

PRESIDENT BUSH always had one asset he could fall back on: the self-confidence of a born salesman. Like Harold Hill in “The Music Man,” he knew how to roll out a new product, however deceptive or useless, with conviction and stagecraft. What the world saw on Wednesday night was a defeated Willy Loman who looked as broken as his war. His flop sweat was palpable even if you turned down the sound to deflect despair-inducing phrases like “Prime Minister Maliki has pledged ...” and “Secretary Rice will leave for the region. ...”

Mr. Bush seemed to know his product was snake oil, and his White House handlers did too. In the past, they made a fetish of situating their star in telegenic settings, from aircraft carriers to Ellis Island. Or they placed him against Orwellian backdrops shrieking “Plan for Victory." But this time even the audio stuttered, as if in solidarity with Baghdad’s continuing electricity blackout, and the Oval Office was ditched, lest it summon up memories of all those past presidential sightings of light at the end of the Iraqi tunnel. Mr. Bush was banished to the White House library, where the backdrop was acres of books, to signify the studiousness of his rethinking of the “way forward.”

"I’m not going to be rushed," the president said a month ago when talking about his many policy consultations. He wasn’t kidding. His ostentatious deep thinking started after Election Day, once he realized that firing Donald Rumsfeld wouldn’t be enough to co-opt the Iraq Study Group. He was thinking so hard that he abandoned his initial plan to announce a strategy before Christmas .

The war, however, refused to take a timeout for the holiday festivities in Crawford. The American death toll in Iraq, which hovered around 2,840 on Election Day, was nearing 3,020 by Wednesday night.

And these additional lives were sacrificed to what end? All the reviews and thinking and postponing produced a policy that, as a former top Bush aide summed it up for The Daily News, is nothing more than "repackaged stay-the-course dressed up to make it look more palatable." The repackaging was half-hearted as well. Not for nothing did the “way forward,” a rubric the president used at least 27 times in December, end up on the cutting-room floor. The tossing of new American troops into Baghdad, a ploy that backfired in Operation Together Forward last year, is too transparently the way backward.

“Victory” also received short shrift, downsized by the president to the paltry goal of getting “closer to success.” The “benchmarks” he cited were so vague that they’d be a disgrace to No Child Left Behind. And no wonder: in November, Mr. Bush couldn’t even get our devoted ally, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, to show up for dinner at their summit in Amman, let alone induce him to root out Shiite militias. The most muscle the former Mr. Bring-’Em-On could muster in Wednesday’s speech was this: “If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people.” Since that support vanished long ago, it’s hard to imagine an emptier threat or a more naked confession of American impotence, all the more pathetic in a speech rattling sabers against Syria and Iran.

Mr. Bush’s own support from the American people is not coming back. His “new” Iraq policy is also in defiance of Iraqi public opinion , the Joint Chiefs, the Baker-Hamilton grandees, and Mr. Maliki, who six weeks ago asked for a lower American profile in Iraq. Which leaves you wondering exactly who is still in the bunker with the president besides the first lady and Barney.

It’s a very short list led by John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and neo-conservative dead-enders like William Kristol and Frederick Kagan, who congregate at The Weekly Standard and the American Enterprise Institute, the Washington think tank. The one notable new recruit is Rudy Giuliani, who likened taming Baghdad to “reducing crime in New York” without noticing that even after the escalation there will be fewer American troops patrolling Baghdad than uniformed police officers in insurgency-free New York City.

Mr. Kagan, a military historian, was sent by the White House to sell its policy to Senate Republicans. It was he, Mr. Kristol and the retired Gen. Jack Keane who have most prominently pushed for this escalation and who published studies and editorials credited with defining it. Given that these unelected hawks are some of the same great thinkers who promoted the Iraq fiasco in the first place, it is hard to imagine why this White House continues to listen to them. Or maybe not that hard. In a typical op-ed article, headlined “Stay the Course, Mr. President!,” Mr. Kagan wrote in The Los Angeles Times in 2005: "Despite what you may have read, the military situation in Iraq today is positive."

Yet Mr. Bush doesn’t even have the courage of his own disastrous convictions: he’s not properly executing the policy these guys sold him. In The Washington Post on Dec. 27, Mr. Kagan and General Keane wrote that escalation could only succeed “with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops” — a figure that has also been cited by Mr. McCain. (Mr. Kagan put the figure at 50,000 to 80,000 in a Weekly Standard article three weeks earlier. Whatever.) By any of these neocons’ standards, the Bush escalation of some 20,000 is too little, not to mention way too late.

The discrepancy between the policy that Mr. Bush nominally endorses and the one he actually ordered up crystallizes the cynicism of this entire war. If you really believe, as the president continues to put it, that Iraq is the central front in “the decisive ideological struggle of our time,” then you should be in favor of having many more troops than we’ve ever had in Iraq. As T. X. Hammes, an insurgency expert and a former marine, told USA Today, that doesn’t now mean a “dribble” (as he ridicules the “surge”) but a total of 300,000 armed coalition forces over a minimum of four years.

But that would mean asking Americans for sacrifice, not giving us tax cuts. Mr. Bush has never asked for sacrifice and still doesn’t. If his words sound like bargain-basement Churchill, his actions have been cheaper still. The president’s resolutely undermanned war plan indicated from Day 1 that he knew in his heart of hearts that Iraq was not the central front in the war against 9/11 jihadism he had claimed it to be, only the reckless detour that it actually was. Yet the war’s cheerleaders, neocon and otherwise, disingenuously blamed our low troop strength almost exclusively on Mr. Rumsfeld.

Now that the defense secretary is gone, what are they to do? For whatever reason, you did not hear Mr. Kagan, General Keane or Mr. McCain speak out against Mr. Bush’s plan even though it’s insufficient by their own reckoning — just a repackaged continuance of the same “Whac-A-Mole” half-measures that Mr. McCain has long deplored. Surely the senator knows that, as his loosey-goosey endorsement attests. (On Friday, he called the Bush plan “the best chance of success” while simultaneously going on record that “a small, short surge would be the worst of all worlds.”)

The question now is how to minimize the damage before countless more Americans and Iraqis are slaughtered to serve the president’s endgame of passing his defeat on to the next president. The Democrats can have all the hearings they want, but they are unlikely to take draconian action (cutting off funding) that would make them, rather than Mr. Bush, politically vulnerable to blame for losing Iraq.

I have long felt that it will be up to Mr. Bush’s own party to ring down the curtain on his failed policy, and after the 2006 midterms, that is more true than ever. The lame-duck president, having lost both houses of Congress and at least one war (Afghanistan awaits), has nothing left to lose. That is far from true of his party.

Even conservatives like Sam Brownback of Kansas and Norm Coleman of Minnesota started backing away from Iraq last week. Mr. Brownback is running for president in 2008, and Mr. Coleman faces a tough re-election fight. But Republicans not in direct electoral jeopardy (George Voinovich of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska) are also starting to waver. It’s another Vietnam-Watergate era flashback. It wasn’t Democrats or the press that forced Richard Nixon’s abdication in 1974; it was dwindling Republican support. Though he had vowed to fight his way through a Senate trial, Nixon folded once he lost the patriarchal leader of his party’s right wing.

That leader was Barry Goldwater , who had been one of Nixon’s most loyal and aggressive defenders until he finally realized he’d been lied to once too often. If John McCain won’t play the role his Arizona predecessor once did, we must hope that John Warner or some patriot like him will, for the good of the country, answer the call of conscience. A dangerous president must be saved from himself, so that the American kids he’s about to hurl into the hell of Baghdad can be saved along with him.

Read full post and comments:
"He’s in the Bunker Now" >>

Surge: US troops prepare for George Bush's last stand

But with allies they don't trust and enemies who confuse them,
commanders know it will be bloody

By Kim Sengupta
Published: 14 January 2007
The Independent/UK

The narrow ambush alleys of Kadhamiyah, the tenements providing sniper cover at Diyala Bridge, the dusty, sprawling killing grounds of Sadr City. These are the strongholds of the Shia militias that the Americans will have to take in the battle for Baghdad.

The US forces in the "surge" into the Iraqi capital face a war on two fronts. The murder miles of Haifa Street and Adhamiyah are the homes to the Sunni insurgency, which continues its bloody course four years after the official end of the war, and there is no sign of this stopping as the US forces take on the Shias.

There are other logistical difficulties of fighting an urban guerrilla war in a city like Baghdad. The militias have spread from their power bases into the so called "mixed areas". Outside the Hamra Hotel, where the dwindling group of Western journalists in Baghdad stays, there are checkpoints run by the Mehdi army, led by the radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr; their Shia competitors, the Badr Brigade; and the Kurdish Peshmerga. Further out are the Shia Defenders of Kadhamiyah, set up by Mr Sadr's cousin Hussein al-Sadr and the government-backed Tiger and Scorpion Brigades.

They all look similar: balaclavas or wrap-around sunglasses and headbands, black leather gloves with fingers cut off, and a very lethal arsenal of weapons. When not manning checkpoints, they hurtle through the streets in 4x4s, scattering the traffic by firing in the air. It is impossible to say which particular group they belong to.

This is what confronts the US forces gathering for George W Bush's last throw of the dice in Iraq. He sees the battle to wrest control of Baghdad from the militias as the key to salvaging victory in the Iraqi quagmire, but distinguishing friend from foe will not be easy. The President has already warned that bloodshed will increase, but will there be any gains?

The main target, the Mehdi army, has around 50,000 well-armed fighters in the capital, mostly concentrated in Sadr City, the vast slum next to Baghdad, and the Shia holy city of Najaf and surrounding areas. But Mr Sadr also has 25,000 more militiamen in the south, where British forces will be in the firing line of retaliation for what the Americans do in Baghdad.

The Shia militias are backed by Iran, while the Syrians are accused of harbouring Sunni insurgents. In his speech last week Mr Bush once again accused the two countries of "allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq ... We will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq. "

To many, this rhetoric is paving the way for a wider escalation. William Arkin writes in The Washington Post: "There is an ominous element here ... To me that means the threat of strikes on targets in those countries." A British analyst, Robert Emerson, adds: "The Americans want to take on the Shia militias. Iran backs them, and will undoubtedly step up covert aid to them. How long will the Americans let that continue before they do something?" Even if there is no "hot pursuit", the Iranian response to US action in Baghdad is likely to place British forces in danger. The UK military has withdrawn from much of the south, concentrating its 7,200 troops in Basra. US authorities were against the British pullout from much of Maysan province, including the capital, Amarah, and are now particularly concerned about plans to hand over all security in the province, including the long Iranian border, to the Iraqi government at the end of February.

Instead of ending patrols by the 600-strong detachment of the Queen's Royal Lancers, the Americans want the British to significantly boost their numbers, especially at the border, in anticipation of Iran's attempts to aid its allies. Doing so would not only mean reversing the process of gradual disengagement, under which up to 3,000 British troops were due to return this spring, but getting sucked back into what threatens to be a prolonged war of attrition. This is particularly problematic for Britain, with its Afghanistan commitment in the background. The accepted consensus is that the Taliban, with hundreds of fighters training and arming in Pakistan, will launch a spring offensive after the winter lull in fighting.

But the first effects of the "surge" will be felt in Baghdad. At present the Americans have more or less withdrawn from the streets of the city, leaving Iraqi forces to man the checkpoints. Instead they base themselves in "Fort Apaches" - heavily fortified camps - emerging to carry out operations, invariably with the use of pulverising, and sometimes indiscriminate, firepower. After being reinforced by some 20,000 troops, the Americans will once again deploy on the streets. Baghdad will be divided into either nine or 11 sectors, according to different contingency plans being drawn up, in which the US troops will work alongside Iraqi forces with "embedded" US personnel.

The soldiers will aim to create mini "green zones" - cut-down versions of the area in the capital where US and British officials, and the Iraqi government, take refuge - guarded by checkpoints, sandbags and barbed wire. Residents would be issued with ID badges, and their every entry and exit logged.

To do this the US and Iraqi government forces will have to win back these areas from the militias. In particular they will have to take on the Shia fighters, many of them government backed, who have been accused of operating death squads.

Ironically, these death squads are the direct by-product of US policy. At the beginning of 2004, with no end to the Sunni insurgency in sight, the Pentagon was reported to have decided to train Shia and Kurdish fighters to carry out "irregular missions". The policy, exposed in the US media, was called the "Salvador Option" after the US-backed counter-insurgency in Latin America more than 20 years ago, which led to 70,000 deaths and countless violations of human rights. Some of the most persistent allegations of abuse have been made against the Wolf Brigade. Their main US adviser until April last year was James Steele, who states in his autobiography that he commanded the US military group in El Salvador during the height of the guerrilla war. The complaints against Iraqi special forces continue.

While in Iraq, I interviewed Ahmed Sadoun, who was arrested in Mosul and held for seven months before being released without charge. He showed the marks on his body of beatings and burning. Mr Sadoun, 38, did not know which paramilitary group had seized him. But they were accompanied by American soldiers, and the Wolf Brigade was widely involved in suppressing disturbances in Mosul at the time.

As for the Mehdi army, the Americans fought a short and fierce battle with Mr Sadr's militia in Najaf two years ago. At the time, however, the Sunni insurgents were still the bigger threat, and it was deemed convenient to let Shia clerics organise a truce. Since then the Mehdi army has been left relatively untroubled by both the US and UK forces. When it briefly took over Amarah in a recent action and blew up a number of police stations, a British force was sent up from Basra, but did not intervene, leaving the Iraqi army to deal with the situation.

There are also tricky political considerations. The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, depends on parliamentary support from Muqtada al-Sadr's followers. Recently US and Iraqi forces went into Sadr City, named after the cleric's father, to capture, according to the military, "a top, illegal armed group commander directing widespread death-squad activity".

Instead of congratulating the troops, Mr Maliki angrily complained he was not told about the operation. "We will ask for clarification of what happened in Sadr City, we will review the issue with the multinational forces so that it will not be repeated," he added. Falan Hassan Shansai, leader of the Sadr bloc, which has 30 of the 275 seats in parliament, warned of the consequences if there was a repetition.

Many in the US military believe the Shia militias, especially the Mehdi army, is too entrenched to be removed. Sergeant Jeff Nelson, an intelligence analyst with the US army's 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, in Baghdad, said recently: "They have infiltrated every branch of public service and every political office they can get their hands on. As soon as the US leaves, they will be able to dominate the area with key citizens, key offices."

Sgt Nelson said his battalion had investigated 40 sectarian killings and collected 57 bodies in a week. None had led to an arrest: "Sometimes we have a feeling of complete hopelessness."

The new strategy is modelled on an operation carried out by Colonel HR McMaster in Tal Afar, north of Baghdad, in 2005. His troops took over the town, which had a reputation for violence, searched it section by section, established a presence and kept the insurgents out. Col McMaster became established as a counter-insurgency expert, and his name is intrinsically linked with the new policy. Both President Bush and his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, have spoken of his action at Tal Afar as a blueprint for Iraq as a whole.

The overall commander picked by Mr Bush to lead the mission, Lt-Gen David Petraeus, is another Iraq veteran with a counter-insurgency reputation. He is one of the few senior members of the US military to support the " surge". He also supports the "hearts and minds" policies advocated by the British military, again unlike many of his US colleagues, who believe the army is for fighting, not nation-building.

They are not the only ones, however, who doubt whether some sort of Northern Ireland option can really be applied to a state in anarchy, like Iraq, especially by an army not culturally attuned to it. The time when it could have been applied, say US and British officers, has gone. The last chance may have been in 2005, when a plan presented by the British was rejected by Donald Rumsfeld.

Critics point out that Baghdad is not Tal Afar, a small place in a remote area. There is also deep scepticism about the ability of the Iraqi armed forces to fulfil their role in the equation. They were supposed to play a major part along the Americans in Operations "Forward Together" and "Forward Together II" in Baghdad last summer. However, at that time, only two of the six battalions supposed to take part in the mission actually turned up.

The correct analogy for the coming battle for Baghdad is not Tal Afar, but a US operation carried out in the Iraqi capital last year. More than 12,000 US troops, supported by helicopter gunships swooping over the rooftops, were sent in to destroy the Shia militias and break the back of the Sunni insurgency.

But by the end of the campaign the power of the gunmen had not diminished, and the scale of bloodshed had risen. It is an ominous template for a struggle on which not only President Bush's credibility, but the future of Iraq is likely to depend.

US ARMY: The plan to 'sanitise' Baghdad

Most of the extra 20,000 US reinforcements will deploy in Baghdad, which will be divided into up to 11 sectors. A plan based on the successful pacification of the northern town of Tal Afar will be carried out, with " safe zones" being created, surrounded by checkpoints, sandbags and barbed wire. Residents would be issued with ID badges, and have their entry and exit logged. The eventual aim is to "join up the dots" and create a large "sanitised" area, from which both Shia militias and Sunni insurgents will be kept out. US troops will also be "embedded" with Iraqi forces taking part in the operation.

IRAQI GOVERNMENT FORCES: Infiltrated and unreliable

The battle for Baghdad will fail unless the newly trained Iraqi army, paramilitary and police forces play their part. In a strategy called " clear and hold", the ultimate aim is for them to retain control when US forces eventually go back into their barracks.

But the Iraqi police in particular has been heavily infiltrated by Shia militias, and the Iraqi army, although not tainted to such an extent, has not proved the most reliable of allies for the US in the past. Out of six battalions scheduled to take part in an operation in Baghdad last year, only two turned up for duty.

MILITIAS: US to take on Shia leader

Until now the focus of US action in Iraq has been the Sunni insurgency. The new strategy is to take on the Shia militias which, often in official uniforms, have operated death squads and carried out sectarian attacks on Sunnis and, at times, Christians. The main target of the Americans is said to be Muqtada al-Sadr, whose heavily armed Mehdi army is blamed for much of the communal strife. Any action against his fighters in Baghdad may lead to retaliation against British troops in the Shia south. There is also anxiety about the reaction of Iran, which backs the Shia militias.

---Raymond Whitaker

Read full post and comments:
"Surge: US troops prepare for George Bush's last stand" >>

Analysis: Congress presses Bush on Iraq

ROBERT H. REID
Associated Press
The Kansas City Star

Congressional opposition to President Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq has opened a new front in an increasingly complex war, setting the stage for political battles whose effects may be felt long after U.S. forces have come home.

The battle could well subvert administration efforts to bolster the power of the presidency, which many Bush supporters believe was undermined in the wake of another unpopular war a generation ago.

As if Sunni nationalists, Islamic extremists, foreign fighters and Shiite militias were not enough, Bush must now battle the Democratic leadership in Congress, as well as influential figures in his own Republican party, who oppose his plan to throw 21,500 more troops into the fray.

The battlelines are reminiscent of the political struggles that occurred during two other unpopular wars - Korea and Vietnam.

Those half-forgotten struggles produced sweeping changes in the U.S. political landscape that persisted long after the guns fell silent.

Democratic leaders of Congress, fresh from victory at the polls in November, hope to force a vote on the Bush plan in the House and Senate, thereby isolating the president politically.

Although those votes will be nonbinding, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico said on MSNBC he expects them to be followed by measures "that restrict troop funding and all kinds of financial support for the war."

During a visit Saturday to Baghdad, Sen. Hillary Clinton told ABC News that instead of sending more U.S. troops to Iraq, it is time to start redeploying American forces out of the country.

A showdown between Congress and the White House could have far-reaching implications not only for Iraq but for American foreign policy as well.

In the best case scenario, the prospect of an American military departure might spur Iraq's ethnic and sectarian factions to reach a political settlement to spare the nation further bloodshed.

But it could also encourage Sunni and Shiite extremists to grab as much power as possible before the Americans leave.

Bush's plan is reminiscent of the furor unleashed by President Nixon's 1970 decision to invade Cambodia during the final stage of the Vietnam War.

The Cambodian incursion, as it was known at the time, occurred at a time when the U.S. public was clamoring for an end to the conflict in Southeast Asia.

In seeking to justify his decision, Nixon said the goal was to destroy North Vietnamese sanctuaries in Cambodia and force Hanoi back to negotiations.

Last week, Bush said the reinforcements were necessary to bring stability to Baghdad so that the Iraqis could reach a political agreement.

Military analysts are divided over whether Bush's plan can succeed, and the administration has refrained from a detailed explanation of what it would do if it fails.

But the 1970 invasion simply drove the North Vietnamese deeper into Cambodia. Five years later, both South Vietnam and Cambodia fell under communist rule.

Nevertheless, the showdown over Cambodia cast a long shadow over American politics for a generation.

The invasion enraged Congress, triggering legislative battles that culminated in the War Powers Act of 1973 that sets limits on a president's power to wage war without congressional approval.

Although the act's constitutionality has never been fully tested in court, Congress has invoked it on several occasions, setting conditions and limitations on the use of U.S. forces in the Middle East, Africa, Haiti and the Balkans.

Vice President Dick Cheney and others have cited the 1973 law as a major element in a series of Vietnam-era legislation that have severely undermined presidential authority to this day.

However, wartime showdowns between presidents and Congress occurred long before the Vietnam conflict.

Those political struggles reflect an ambiguity in the Constitution, which grants Congress the power to declare war but includes no language defining such a declaration.

As a result, many of America's conflicts, including the Civil War, have been fought without a declaration approved by Congress.

In the Civil War, for example, President Lincoln proclaimed Southern states in rebellion and ordered a blockade of their ports, triggering four years of war.

Eight months into the conflict, Congress established a joint committee to oversee the war, holding hearings into Union failures on the battlefield at a time when the very survival of the nation was in peril.

Critics complained at the time that the committee used newspaper leaks to discredit some of Lincoln's generals, undermining Northern morale at a time when Union victory was by no means certain.

Similar complaints were raised again during World War II when a little-known senator from Missouri, Harry Truman, chaired a committee investigating military waste and fraud.

Critics accused Truman of undermining the war effort. But his committee was credited with saving billions of dollars by uncovering waste and war-profiteering.

Truman's efforts won him the Democratic vice presidential nomination in 1944 and propelled him into the White House when President Roosevelt died the following year.

But Truman himself came under criticism for failing to seek a congressional declaration of war when he dispatched troops to South Korea to block an invasion from the communist North.

Public support for the war waned after China entered the conflict, which bogged down in a stalemate. The war became so unpopular that Truman decided against seeking re-election in 1952.

Republican war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower won the White House after promising to halt the fighting, which ended with a cease-fire on July 27, 1953.

Read full post and comments:
"Analysis: Congress presses Bush on Iraq" >>