Been There, Done That

Four years of unfounded assurances about Iraq from President Bush have generated profound suspicion among the American people, their elected representatives and even the press corps.

As the days tick down toward Bush's announcement of a "new way forward" in Iraq, journalists aren't just asking what the plan is. They're asking: Should we take what he says on face value? And: Is any of this really new?

The inescapable conclusion appears to be that much if not all of what the president is expected to advocate has been tried before and has failed.

Michael Abramowitz, Robin Wright and Ann Scott Tyson write in Sunday's Washington Post: "President Bush is putting the final touches on his new Iraq policy amid growing skepticism inside and outside the administration that the emerging package of extra troops, economic assistance and political benchmarks for the Baghdad government will make any more than a marginal difference in stabilizing the country. . . .

"Although officials said the president has yet to settle on an exact figure of new troops, senior military leaders and commanders are deeply worried that a 'surge' of as many as five brigades, or 20,000 troops, in Iraq and Kuwait would tax U.S. ground forces already stretched to the breaking point -- and may still prove inadequate to quell sectarian violence and the Sunni insurgency. Some senior U.S. officials think it could even backfire. . . .

"Meanwhile, the political and economic ideas under consideration all appear to be variations on initiatives that U.S. and Iraqi authorities have proved unable to implement successfully since the 2003 invasion or have tried and found wanting, according to former U.S. officials and experts on reconstructing war-torn countries."

And once again, Bush appears to be counting on the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to make the necessary reforms, despite its track record of promising but not delivering since taking power in May.

One senior White House official told The Post: "'It is not just rhetoric,' the official said of Maliki. 'He is actually putting forward specific plans and making different commitments than he has in the past.' Speaking on the condition of anonymity because the president has not settled on a final plan, the official said Bush expects 'a different result' from that of previous security plans."

David E. Sanger writes in the Sunday New York Times: "President Bush's new Iraq strategy calls for a rapid influx of forces that could add as many as 20,000 American combat troops to Baghdad, supplemented with a jobs program costing as much as $1 billion intended to employ Iraqis in projects including painting schools and cleaning streets, according to American officials who are piecing together the last parts of the initiative. . . .

"Nonetheless, even in outlining the plan, some American officials acknowledged deep skepticism about whether the new plan could succeed.

"They said two-thirds of the promised Iraqi force would consist of Kurdish pesh merga units to be sent from northern Iraq, and they said some doubts remained about whether they would show up in Baghdad and were truly committed to quelling sectarian fighting. . . .

"[P]revious American reconstruction efforts in Iraq have failed to translate into support from the Iraqi population, and some Republicans as well as the new Democratic leadership in Congress have questioned if a troop increase would do more than postpone the inevitable and precarious moment when Iraqi forces have to stand on their own."