Iraq War, Mark V

George Bush is nothing if not tenacious. He's determined to fight one Iraq war after another untl he finds one that works, damn the expense and casualties.

It all began with Iraq War, Mark I. That was the lightning invasion of the country, the quick and dirty war that was supposed to see a government in exile drop right into Baghdad and take over. This is the war that Donald Rumsfeld doubted would last more than six months. Military objective: defeat Iraq army in the field and compel surrender. Outcome: Iraq army dissolved, Hussein government fled. No conquest, no surrender. Failure.

That didn't work so it was replaced by Iraq War, Mark II. This one had Iraq governed by American pro consul Bremer who was going to preside over reconstruction and the creation of a new Iraqi government from the security of the fortified Green Zone. Militarily, this war was styled as a battle to defeat the "terrorists" and "dead-enders", nuisances that would be quickly swept away. Outcome: Evolution of a conventional insurgency coupled with expanded terrorist campaign. Failure.

We all know how well Mark II worked out and so did Bush when he launched Iraq War, Mark III, the war to support the creation and consolidation of an Iraqi central government and pursue reconstruction. The military objectives of this war were to train an Iraqi army so that, "as they stood up, American units could stand down." That didn't work so well either. Outcome: Iraqi units chose to leave the field rather than stand up. American forces remain bogged down. Failure.

Unable to withdraw his army, the US president launched Iraq War, Mark IV, the war to contain or at least babysit the emerging civil war. This did not go at all well. The Iraqi army and security services were found to be thoroughly infiltrated and compromised to the point where the good guys and the bad guys were sometimes one and the same. The loss of confidence in the goverenment's security forces caused Iraqis to fall back on sectarian militias for protection. These militias grew in power and influence to the point that they rivalled the central government itself. During this war, the military objective focused on battling the insurgents, particularly the Sunni groups. Outcome: Insurgency continued accompanied by ascendancy of militias as combattants. Failure.

When the Iraq War, Mark IV faltered, Bush faced his greatest predicament. His support at home tanked. The American people turned against the Iraq war. The opposition Democrats recovered both houses of Congress. Demands for withdrawal of American forces flooded in from the American people, study groups and think tanks, both parties in Congress and even from top generals. Faced with a wall of often-hostile critics, Bush retreated in order to regroup and craft a strategy for yet another Iraq War.

This week George W. Bush will unveil his strategy for the next Iraq War. Whether this will be Mark V or merely Mark IVb remains to be seen. Most observers believe it'll be Mk. IVb, essentially a repeat of Mk IV but with another 30,000 American soldiers in the form of a "surge" created by delaying the departure of already deployed Marines and accelerating the arrival of replacement Army personnel to create an overlap that will constitute the surge.

What will it accomplish? According to various generals who commented on the idea of more troops when it was first proposed, not much. Those generals are being pulled, Abizaid retiring and Casey being relieved of his command. New generals - true believers or sycophants depending on your outlook - will be taking the helm of the next Iraq War.

Will the next war succeed where the others have failed? It's not easy to see how. Yes there will be more American forces deployed, mainly in Baghdad, but the increase is still pretty modest especially given that conditions on the ground have significantly worsened.

Of course announcing a plan and carrying it through are not the same thing. Bush no longer has any meaningful degree of popular support for his war. He is confronted by a solidly anti-war Congress with only one Democrat and roughly one in four Republicans willing to support him.

The Iraq War, Mark V may be fought and lost, not in Baghdad but in Washington. That sort of defeat appears to be the only way to compel Bush to confront the reality of failure in Iraq and the need to withdraw the American occupation force.

There are options other than repeating the same mistakes over and over again but they require a president with a mind open to considering them and willing to accept that his adventures have been a remarkable succession of ruinous failures.