Some peace advocates have floated worst-case Bush escalation scenarios since last January, but the Superpower always considers more than a single scenario. The worst bombing of Hanoi, for example, deliberately preceded the January 1973 announcement of a peace agreement and return of American POWs.
The first escalation scenario, issued books and web messages, was that the US intended to bomb or invade Iran. [See Scott Ritter, Target Iran, or the columns of Seymour Hersh, for examples]. It still might happen. But the fact is that the US doesn't have the ground troops to follow up. Instead, the US has initiated the diplomacy towards Iran -- and Syria as well -- recommended in the Baker-Hamilton Report. Perhaps the expansion of the naval fleet in the Persian Gulf was an effort to gain leverage in diplomacy, but who yet knows?
The second, more recent, scenario projects that the US is quietly doubling the combat troops in Iraq by the end of the year, a so-called "secret surge." This surely is worth the attention of the media, presidential candidates, and Congress, if only to fire up stronger anti-war feelings among the voters. [See Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 21] This "plot", which cannot remain secret for long, consists of extending combat tours and overlapping the arrivals and withdrawals of American troops so that the number of combat troops increases from 52,000 last January to 98,000 by the end of 2007. The ostensible purpose would be to "stabilize" Baghdad, although the flood of American soldiers presents greater target opportunities for the Iraqis, who already have deflated the "surge" significantly.
The unstated reason for the additional troops also lies in the departure of the "coalition of the willing", which in early 2004 consisted of some 25,000 troops and is declining to single digits. The current estimate is between 12-15,000 non-US combat troops, with the British press reporting that their remaining troops will withdraw next year. The increased US troops will be filling a deficit, not decisively increasing overall combat troop strength.
The "surge", it must be remembered, was conditionally endorsed by the Iraq Study Group, as follows:
"We could...support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the US commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective." [p. 73]
Bush and several of his hardcore neo-conservative advisers at first seemed to reject the "realists" of the Baker-Hamilton school, but it is possible that a change is taking place. First, Bush and Rove never expected that the November 2006 election would result in a Democratic Congress with the power to make their lives very difficult through 2008. Second, the immediate fallout of November was a deep unease among Republicans who, unlike Bush, are up for re-election next year.
For whatever reasons, Bush portrayed himself as a reborn realist yesterday, suddenly affirming the scenario that was unfolding all along. The president said he agreed with the Baker-Hamilton blueprint.
It would be a mistake to draw any firm conclusions from this about-face. However, several key dates are approaching before the presidential election dominates all politics:
First, in late July, the White House will have to report on the benchmarks being imposed on the Baghdad regime, from the oil law to militias;
Second, in the following weeks, any number of anti-war amendments will be attached to the appropriations bill, setting up new tensions with the White House;
Third, Gen Petraeus will assess the situation on the ground in September. Whether he declares the surge a success or failure, the presidential script could announce a form of "mission accomplished" ["we've stabilized Baghdad and can begin bringing our troops home" or "we've done all we can, now it's up to the Iraqis"], and begin withdrawing a division or more of American troops by Christmas. It's all in the Baker-Hamilton manual.
This de-escalation scenario can be more problematic for the Democrats and the peace movement than an open escalation scenario. With an oil law in hand, there will be powerful forces arguing that American casualties must come down as the presidential year of 2008 begins. What will the Democrats do and the media declare if some troops start coming home? After all, five of their powerful Beltway insiders have signed and promoted Baker-Hamilton.
Of course, all the players are talking about combat troops only, a future offensive against al-Qaeda in Iraq, and in these circumstances the war could re-escalate after de-escalating, or a fall 2007 "incident" could inflame the crisis again. It's happened before. It's about dampening and dividing the voters during an election year.
TOM HAYDEN'S CURRENT BOOK IS ENDING THE WAR IN IRAQ [AKASHIC]. His website is tomhayden.com.