It is common rhetoric among pundits and politicians alike that the price of failure in Iraq is too high. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates summed up this line of thinking in a speech to the Senate Armed Services Committee: "Mistakes certainly have been made by the United States in Iraq. However we got to this moment, the stakes now are incalculable.” Gates is referring to the geopolitical future of the entire Middle East: if America fails to create a stable, united and democratic Iraq, there is a high probability that Iraq will come under the influence of Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia. In this scenario Iraq will become a focal point for extremism, religious conflict and perhaps open warfare between Shiites and their Sunni neighbors. How can the United States prevent this from happening? President Bush’s solution is a “surge” in troop numbers.

Bush announced last Wednesday that he plans to send 20,000 more American troops to Iraq, and five brigades are headed straight for Baghdad. Bush said in his address the job of these troops is “to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.” These troops may alleviate the sectarian violence in the city of Baghdad, but they will not be sufficient to stabilize Iraq to the extent that U.S. troops will be able to withdraw without consequence.

The primary cause for concern with Bush’s plan is that there are subtle indications that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is less than enthusiastic about the new strategy. A representative for the prime minister said, “What is suitable for our conditions in Iraq is what we decide, not what others decide for us,” which suggests Maliki will continue to shelter his militia allies from interference by American soldiers. If U.S. troops are unable to confront these militias, especially that of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, then stability becomes a game of chance at best.
The plan also does not call for a sufficient amount of troops to accomplish its stated goal. Bush is asking for only 20,000 troops to increase the overall number of forces to 150,000. Does the number 150,000 sound familiar? It should, because it is the number of troops that was in Iraq two years ago. There is no reason to believe that changing military tactics in Baghdad and boosting troop strength by only 15 percent will solve the political problems facing the country as a whole.

Complicating matters further are the various interests of the major states in the region. It is no secret that Iran and Syria are arming and supporting extremists in Iraq. These states are capable of doing so, almost without interference, because of the porous borders separating them from Iraq. As long as the Iranians and Syrians possess the ability to funnel arms and money across their respective borders to death squads, it is unrealistic to believe the violence will stop. The Iranians and Syrians are not stupid. They have undoubtedly realized they cannot allow Bush’s plan to succeed; they cannot even allow the media to perceive the plan as being even moderately successful. These states are likely to raise the stakes in Iraq by moving more arms and money to their militias and death squads than ever before. They know that as more Americans die in Iraq, the stronger the U.S. anti-war movement will become and troop withdrawal becomes much more likely as a result.

In order to solve the problems in Iraq, it is necessary to stop the extremists from instigating chaos and attempt to instill order in the country. Bush’s plan grossly underestimates the resources necessary to accomplish this goal, considering the massive problems Iraq faces simply maintaining order. It would not be the first time that this administration has underestimated the resources needed to accomplish a task. Bush either must commit the necessary resources to secure and stabilize Iraq, or he must order the immediate withdrawal of our troops and accept the harsh consequences of failure.

Chart Westcott is a senior in the College of Arts and Science.