The President's
'New Strategy' for Iraq

By Alan Shapiro

To the Teacher:

The president's January 10 speech on a "new strategy" for Iraq has provoked widespread discussion. The first student reading below offers a summary of the strategy's main points; the second summarizes reactions from leading Democrats and Republicans; the third provides a brief overview of three different plans for Iraq, all by congressional Democrats.

Previous materials on this website provide additional background for students. They include: "Iraq: 'A grave and deteriorating situation,'" "2006 Election Issue: Iraq," and "Election Issue: Terrorism." Given the controversiality of the Bush plan, see also on this website "Teaching on Controversial Issues."

Student Reading 1:
President Bush's "new strategy" speech

On the day that President Bush addressed the nation on his "new strategy" for Iraq, Haifa Waleed said, "I am ten years old, but I have not been to school for the past three years because I'm scared of the killings….Many of my friends have been kidnapped or killed….I prefer to be illiterate than to die…and to have my ears sent to my family as happened to one of my best friends three months ago." (Reuters Foundation, www.alternet.org, 1/10/07)

On that day Reuters reported, "At least 91 people were killed or found dead in Iraq on Wednesday" (New York Times, 1/11/07)

Just before the November 2006 congressional elections, President Bush said, "we're winning" in Iraq. Addressing the nation a little more than two months later on January 10, 2007, he said, "The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people and it is unacceptable to me….Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."

According to the president, the mistakes included a belief that the Iraq's democratic election in 2005 "would bring the Iraqis together." He said "our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons"—not enough American and Iraqi troops and "too many restrictions on the troops we did have."

The president announced a "new strategy" with these elements.

1. Additional troops. The U.S. will send 21,000 additional troops to Iraq. Some 17,000 of them will go to Baghdad (almost doubling the number already there) to support Iraqi forces in a new effort to bring security to the capital. The other 4,000 will go to Anbar Province, which the president called the "home base" of Al Qaeda and "the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital." He emphasized that "the most important priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad."

Bush said this effort "will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not" because instead of moving on to other targets after clearing areas, "we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared.

"In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods, and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated."

2. Iraqi government measures. In addition to cracking down on sectarian militias, the Iraqi government pledges to "pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis"; to spend $10 billion on reconstruction projects that will create jobs; to involve more Iraqis in politics by holding provincial elections later this year; and to make it possible for former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party to enter the government. These measures are aimed primarily at convincing Sunnis that they will have a stake in the future of the country.

3. More U.S. advisors. The U.S. will embed more advisers in the Iraqi army to speed up its training.

4. The U.S. will try to stop Iran and Syria from allowing "terrorists and insurgents…to move in and out of Iraq" and stop Iran from "providing material support for attacks on American troops." Said Bush: "I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the [Persian Gulf] region ….And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region."

The president said, "Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue, and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties….If circumstances change, we will adjust. Honorable people have different views and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed."

"Failure in Iraq would be a disaster," Bush continued. "Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. One September 11, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq."

The president said he had "made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended." He also warned, "If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people."

The president's decision means, among other things, that the Army will need to call back National Guard members that have already served one-year tours in Iraq and have been home less than five years.

For discussion and inquiry

After students have completed the reading, ask them to study it and then write three good questions about the president's plan. A "good" question, in this context, is one, which if answered well, would give the student further insight into and understanding of the president's "new strategy." A student need not be able to answer the question.

Divide the class into groups of four to six students. The members of each group should listen closely as each student reads his or her questions to them and then, perhaps, to ask clarifying questions. If a question is not clear, how might it be clarified? Is the question answerable? If not, how might it be rephrased? When all questions have been heard and considered, the group should select the two questions the group thinks are best.

A reporter from each group should then read to the whole class the selected questions while the teacher writes them, without comment, on the chalkboard. The teacher can then invite students to analyze the questions in terms of such additional questions as the following:

1. Which questions restrict you to factual answers? If, in any case, you don't know what the facts are, how would you go about determining them?

2. Which questions call for someone's opinion? Whose? Why? If an expert's, which expert or experts? How do you decide whether someone is an expert?

3. Which questions contain assumptions? Is a given assumption reasonable to make? If not, how would you reword the question?

4. Which questions contain words that require definition before you try to answer them? What definition?

5. Which questions can you answer with absolute certainty?

Note: For a discussion of this question-asking approach, further questions, and student exercises, see "Thinking Is Questioning" and "the doubting game" materials in "Teaching Critical Thinking," both available on this website.

Consider having students individually or in small groups pursue answers to the questions they are most interested in and then report findings to the class for discussion.

Some additional questions

On each of the following matters, the president made no comment. Why do you suppose he did not?

1. The president did not say what he would do if Iraqi leaders do not honor their pledges.

2. He did not state a time limit for fulfilling his plan.

3. He did not say what he would do if his "new strategy" did not succeed.

4. He did not say why his path "would be more likely to succeed" that the paths others have proposed. (see Reading 3)

5. Why would the president regard failure in Iraq as "a disaster"? Do you agree? Why or why not? What evidence is there that failure in Iraq would mean a Sunni extremist victory that could threaten the U.S.?

6. In past efforts to bring security to Baghdad, the Shiite government of Prime Minister al-Maliki has failed to deliver on promises to confront Shiite militias. The largest of the militias, the Mahdi army of Moqtada al-Sadr, is one of al-Maliki's most important allies in the Iraqi parliament. What reason is there now to believe that the prime minister will crack down on Shiite militias?

Student Reading 2:
Responses to the president's speech

Democratic Opposition

"The American people soundly rejected the president's Iraq policy in November….We can't continue to follow this course. I have consistently called for the redeployment of our military from Iraq, but now Congress must use its main power of the purse to put an end to our involvement in this disastrous war. An indefinite presence of U.S. military personnel in Iraq will not fix that country's political problems. And sending more troops to Iraq will not provide the stability that can only come from a political agreement.
—Senator Russ Feingold, Wisconsin

"I have not been told the truth. I have not been told the truth over and over again by administration witnesses, and the American people have not been told the truth."
—Senator Bill Nelson, Florida

"The fundamental question that the American people—and, I think, every senator on this panel [Senate Foreign Relations Committee], Republican and Democrat—are having to ask now is, at what point do we say, 'Enough'?"
—Senator Barack Obama, Illinois

"A fool's paradise describes nothing as aptly as our Iraq policy today….If the president did grasp, I think, the sad extent of that failure, I sincerely doubt he would have ordered yet more troops into Iraq."
—Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut

Republican Opposition

Bush's speech was "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam," said Senator Chuck Hagel. "It's wrong to place American troops in the middle of Iraq's civil war….Are we going to pacify Baghdad? Are we going to break the militia's stronghold? Are we going to use these troops to propel or force a settlement between the Shias and Sunnis? What's the objective of it? I will guarantee that there's going to be a lot more American casualties. And there's going to be a lot more animosity by the Iraqis." The idea that Iraqis will only respond to more troops is "complete folly unless you're going to kill all the Iraqis."
—Senator Chuck Hagel, Nebraska

"I refuse to put more American lives on the line in Baghdad without being assured that the Iraqis themselves are willing to do what they need to do to end the violence of Iraqi against Iraqi."
—Senator Norm Coleman, Minnesota

"I am skeptical that a surge of troops will bring an end to the escalation of violence and the insurgency in Iraq. Many of the generals that have served there have said they don't believe additional troops will be helpful."
—Senator George V. Voinovich, Ohio

"The president and his team should explain what objectives we are trying to achieve if forces are expanded, where and how will they be used, why such a strategy will succeed, how Iraqi forces will be involved."
—Senator Richard G. Lugar, Indiana

Republican Support

"An excellent speech," said Senator John McCain. "There are two keys to any increase in U.S. force levels: it must be substantial and it must be sustained….Only by controlling the violence can we pave the way for a political settlement. But once the government wields greater authority it will be incumbent upon Iraqi leaders to take significant steps on their own. These include a commitment to go after the militias, a reconciliation process for insurgents and Baathists, more equitable distribution of government resources….I believe that success is still possible."
—Senator John McCain, Arizona

"We know with certainty that a precipitous, hasty withdrawal guarantees a strategic failure in Iraq and across the region….The president should be commended for adapting to the reality on the ground in Iraq, and although the new plan is not without risk, it provides the best chance for helping the Iraqi people form a country that can defend itself and be an ally in the war on terror."
—Senator Mitch McConnell, Kentucky

"I would ask, at least in the short term here, that we measure our words. That we not have a political stampede to declare the war lost when it's not yet lost, or to embrace strategies that would lead to defeat—because I do believe this is part of the overall war on terror."
—Senator Lindsay Graham, South Carolina

Independent Democratic Support

"I applaud the president for rejecting the fatalism of failure and pursuing a new course to achieve success in Iraq. There is no more difficult decision that a president can make than to send our nation's bravest soldiers and patriots into harm's way. Yet, no objective is more worthy in defending America's vital security interests than aiding a struggling democracy and supporting brave moderates who are in a life and death struggle against totalitarian extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran….In the coming days and weeks, we should undertake respectful debate and deliberation over this new plan. Excessive partisan division and rancor at home only weakens our will to prevail in this war."
—Senator Joseph Lieberman, Independent Democrat, Connecticut

Foreign Support

A U.S. withdrawal "would signify defeat, which would result in strengthening all the enemies' desire for expansion, such as Iran's persistence in developing its nuclear weapons, and Al Qaeda would double its activities in Iraq and the whole region."
—an opinion article in an Arab newspaper, Asharq Alawsat, whose publishers are close to the royal family of Saudi Arabia, according to the New York Times

Iraqi response

From a report by John Burns and Sabrina Tavernise in the New York Times,1/12/07 ("In Baghdad, Bush Policy Is Met with Resentment")

"Iraq's Shiite government offered only a grudging endorsement…of President Bush's proposal to deploy more than 20,000 additional troops in an effort to curb sectarian violence and regain control of Baghdad. The tepid response immediately raised questions about whether the government would make a good-faith effort to prosecute the new war plan.

"The Iraqi leader, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, failed to appear at a news conference and avoided any public comment. He left the government's response to an official spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, who gave what amounted to a backhanded approval of the troop increase and emphasized that Iraqis, not Americans, would set the future course in the war.

"Mr. Dabbagh said that the government's objective was to secure the eventual withdrawal of American troops, and that for that to be possible there had to be security for Iraqis. 'If this can be achieved by increasing either Iraqi or multinational forces,' he added, 'the government will not stand against it….'

"'The plan can be developed according to the needs….What is suitable for our conditions in Iraq is what we decide, not what others decide for us….the good thing in this plan is that it determines that responsibility should be transferred from the Americans to the Iraqis.'

"[Iraqi] officials were at pains to say that the prime minister would decide the issue of most concern to the Iraqi leader: whether, and when, Iraqi and American forces would be allowed to move in force into Sadr City. That Shiite working-class district in northeast Baghdad is the stronghold of the Mahdi Army, the most powerful of the Shiite militias, and the main power base of Moktada al-Sadr, the Mahdi Army leader, whose parliamentary bloc sustains Mr. Maliki in office."

U.S. public response

According to a CNN poll completed after the president's speech, 66 percent of Americans oppose the president's plan; 32 percent support it.

For discussion

1. What questions do students have about any of the comments? How might they be answered?

2. What do you understand Senator Feingold to mean by urging Congress to "use its main power of the purse" to end the Iraq war? Is Congress constitutionally capable of doing this? What makes you think so?

3. Do you feel that Americans have not been told "the truth"? (Nelson comment) Why or why not?

4. Why do you think Senator Hagel regards the president's plan as "a dangerous foreign policy blunder"? Do you agree? Why or why not?

5. How do you suppose the president would respond to Senator Lugar's question about why he thinks his strategy will succeed?

6. Senator McCain thinks that controlling the violence in Iraq can lead to a political settlement? Why do you suppose he thinks to? Do you agree? Why or why not?

7. How would you respond to those who think only a political settlement first will end the violence?

8. Senator Lieberman clearly regards success in Iraq as vital to America's security interests. Why do you suppose he thinks so? Do you agree? Why or why not?

9. How do you interpret the Iraqi government's "endorsement" of the Bush plan?

Student Reading 3:
Democratic strategies

Some Democratic congress members and senators who oppose the president's "new strategy" have proposed one of their own.

Representative John Murtha, Pennsylvania

Murtha's plan calls for the U.S. "to immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces; to create a quick reaction force in the region; to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines; to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq."

For further details see www.house.gov/murtha.

Senator Carl Levin, Michigan

"As our uniformed military leaders have repeatedly told us, there is no military solution to the violence in Iraq; there must be a political solution among Iraqis. Iraqi leaders are continuing to fiddle while their country is burning.

"We need to deliver a cold dose of reality to the Iraqi leaders and tell them that we are not going to be their security blanket without end. We need to tell them that we will begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces by the end of this year. Nothing will get the attention of the Iraqi leaders like seeing the first American troops begin to leave Iraq.

"We should also change the mission of the remaining forces to put an Iraqi face on daily security operations there. We should adjust our forces to one of training and supporting Iraqi security forces, targeted counterinsurgency operations, and the protection of U.S. personnel and facilities….

"The administration needs to change course in Iraq and deliver the message to the Iraqi leaders that they alone can defeat the insurgency and they must choose between civil war and nationhood."

For further details see www.levin.senate.gov.

Senator Joseph Biden, Delaware

"The idea is to maintain a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis their own regions. The central government would be responsible for common interests, like border security and the distribution of oil revenues. The plan would bind Sunnis by guaranteeing a proportionate share of oil revenues. It would increase economic aid but tie it to the protection of minorities and women's rights and the creation of a job program. It would require a regional non-aggression pact, overseen by the UN Security Council. And it would allow us to responsibly withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2007."

For further details see www.biden.senate.gov.

For discussion

1. Consider each plan. What questions does the plan raise for you? How might you answer these questions?

2. Does any one of these plans seem superior to the president's? Why or why not?

For further inquiry

1. The continuing violence in Iraq is at the center of attention for everyone concerned about its future as well as Iraq's impact on the region and the United States. Who are the parties to the violence? What can you determine to be their reasons for what they are doing?

2. There are differences of opinion about which should come first—stopping the violence or achieving a political settlement. If the former, what makes stopping the violence so difficult? If the latter, who must be the parties to any political settlement and why? What sort of political settlement?

3. Leaders of Sunni Arab countries in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia, have expressed their concern about the conflict and violence in Iraq spreading beyond its borders. The systematic effort of Shiite militias in Iraq to drive Sunnis from their neighborhoods, an "ethnic cleansing" process, has the potential to make millions of Sunni Iraqis refugees as they flee their country. (Hundreds of thousands have already left for Syria and Jordan.) What would be the impact on neighboring countries?

4. Shiite Iran's growing influence with Shiite Iraqi leaders its nuclear intentions make it a growing power in the region. This is a major concern to Sunni Arab leaders. Why?

5. The U.S. is sending an additional carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf, where the U.S. already has substantial forces. Why? Why does the president regard Iraq as a national security threat? (Bush called Iraq part of "the axis of evil" five years ago.)

For writing and citizenship

What conclusions do students reach about U.S. policy in Iraq? Ask each student to compose a letter of several paragraphs to their congress member, their senator and/or the president about those conclusions.