In Which We Escalate? Or Not?

If this LA Times report is accurate, the 'New Way Forward' is right into the meatgrinder-

As President Bush weighs new policy options for Iraq, strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to "double down" in the country with a substantial buildup in American troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive against Muqtada Sadr, the radical Shiite leader impeding development of the Iraqi government.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff will present their assessment and recommendations to Bush at the Pentagon today. Military officials, including some advising the chiefs, have argued that an intensified effort may be the only way to get the counterinsurgency strategy right and provide a chance for victory...

Steve Gilliard hits on the right historical analogy: "In short, Cambodia, 1970."

The article continues-

...The approach overlaps somewhat a course promoted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz)...

...Such an option would appear to satisfy Bush's demand for a strategy focused on victory rather than disengagement. It would disregard key recommendations and warnings of the Iraq Study Group, however, and provide little comfort for those fearful of a long, open-ended U.S. commitment in the country...

Once again, a summary from Gilliard: "The ISG [Iraq Study Group], imperfect as it was, was cover for Bush to wind down his failed war. So now, like a spiteful teenager, he's gonna show us all that he was right and Go Big, regardless of what anyone thinks."

He makes the suggestion that Congress must demand answers from the White House on this.

The LA Times article does note the many obstacles to this plan (lack of congressional and public support, uncertainty as to how Robert Gates wants to proceed, lack of troops, the status of the Iraqi government, etc), but reality didn't get in the President's way before the war and hasn't gotten in his way during it either.

A Defense official summarizes the brilliant thinking that went into this proposal: "I think it is worth trying." A lot of things are worth trying. But that doesn't mean you should. The whole war has been a (failed) series of trying things; the people in charge of these failures shouldn't keep getting more do-overs.

That they didn't try this two years ago when they still had support proves how political it is.

The President's loyal defenders would, of course, love this plan. Conservative columnist Rich Lowry says at National Review online that "[T]his will be a real gut-check moment for Bush. Will he continue to defer to his top military commanders, even when their approach is failing? Or will he exercise his power as commander-in-chief and really run the war?"

There are so many things wrong with that sentiment... not the least of which is blaming the military for this war's failures, when they were only obeying the orders of Bush, Rumsfeld, and the rest. Furthermore, the idea that Bush has 'deferred' to military commanders is also insulting, when it's been clear that he's uninterested in taking anyone's advice, even the military's. He does what he feels is most politically expedient for himself. Finally, the idea that the President has yet to actually 'his power as commander-in-chief' and should do so now is downright frightening, as no President has ever brandished that title like this one has. The Commander-in-Chief cultists have used that constitutionally-limited title to justify the President's ability to do all manner of things (torture and kidnapping, warrantless spying on American citizens, secret prisons, threatening journalists with legal action, etc) and yet Lowry dares to portray the President as somehow having been unattached thus far.

Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson rips apart this plan-

So we’re doubling down so we can continue to bleed treasure at the rate of $8 billion a month, to say nothing of the now ritual sacrifice of 100 Americans, for the forseeable future.

Plus: Now we’re going to be taking the fighting to a Sadr’s Shia armies, trying to break the back, not of Al Qaeda in Iraq, but of the one movement, the one idea that tens of thousands of Iraqis have shown themselves willing to organize and die for...

...Forget “mission creep.” This is mission lurch. Are we really going to stay in Iraq until we “neutralize” — i.e. blow to pieces or imprison in Abu Ghraib — every Iraqi who isn’t keen on our notion of a unified, multi-sectarian, pro American, pro Western, anti-Islamist Iraq? Newsflash: that’s just about everybody who hasn’t already fled to Jordan...

...My hope, such as it is, is that this is a strategic leak of “Plan Crazy,” designed as a counterweight to the let’s-get-out impulses of Baker Hamilton, such that Bush can decide to stay the course, now as a matter of centrism. Oy.

He may be right. Or not. Either way, these face-saving gambles seem doomed to fail.

Finally, the President says to stop rushing him. The Decider needs time. Hey, it's only a war.

[UPDATE: It may just be speculation with no real military support. We'll know next month.]