So Bush is now finally acknowledging a bit of reality--he grants that the war in Iraq is not going all that well. That means the "war on terror" isn't going well either.The shadow of Iraq hangs over Washington, London and Canberra. Even the last operation to clear Baghdad was a failure.

Steve Bell

Remember Shock and Awe? Remember the "mission accomplished" scenario? Or the way the corporate media, by and large, was still recycling the White House press releases. Or the way the conservative movement ran the triumphalist message underpinned by the maintenance and projection of American military power?

Now Bush is looking at defeat. It's that simple. For the neo-cons it's going to be more troops in Iraq--the surge option. For the neo-cons there was nothing wrong with the idea of invading Iraq at all. The problem is that not enough resources has been put into the occupation. So more manpower is needed. It's the “one last push” argument, which says the White House cannot hope to slink away from Baghdad, leaving the Iraqis in charge, without first stabilising the capital. Bush can still leave Iraq a winner and even "transform" the entire Middle East.

Won't that 'secure Baghdad' strategy (the Keane-Kagan strategy) provoke more attacks by al-Qaeda and provide more targets for Sunni insurgents?

If Iraq has destroyed the Bush legacy, then it is likely that the US conservatives will blame the loss in Iraq on liberals no matter what happens; and in Australia the neo-conservatives will blame failure in Iraq on the ALP, the ABC and SBS and the left in general. The neo-conservatives assume that unswerving support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a necesary condition for being accepted as being serious about terrorism and national security.

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)