Between the Lines of the "Surge"

No real surprises tonight, but there may be a couple of things that push the boundaries of where they've been before. As expected, the Prez escalated the conflict in Iraq by promising more troops into Iraq to . . . well, do pretty much what they've been doing so far, clearing out neighborhoods and trying to keep the "bad guys" from coming back in. So what was new? He sort of accepted responsibility for what's gone wrong in the operation so far: "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." Of course, he didn't necessarily say mistakes were made, and if they were, he's certainly not giving any indication of what they might have been. But this is the closest he's come yet to saying he did anything wrong, so I guess we should be happy with what we can get.

The other thing that concerns me to some extent is a very vague statement he made about Iran and Syria.

These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

He didn't specify where we'd seek out and destroy these networks--will we enter Iran and attack there if we feel it necessary? Was this the Prez marking his territory to invade Iran on the timetable of his choosing? That would explain the otherwise odd decision of putting an admiral in charge of two land wars in the Middle East and Asia. The new CENTCOM commander doesn't seem a shoo-in for that, but if you need somebody to lead an air-and-sea attack against Iran, he's your guy. The Prez also mentioned that he's deploying more Patriot missile systems into the area. Just in case they're needed.

The most ridiculous notion in the new "surge" plan is this:

The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts.

When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort, along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations; conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door- to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.

That's right. This whole plan depends on the Iraqis stepping up. Isn't that what we've been waiting for since the beginning of this whole mess? Why do we think it'll work at this point? Well, the Prez offered this:

Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

There you go: because Maliki promised that it would. But, and I'm just playing the devil's advocate here for a moment, what happens if it doesn't work? What kind of consequences is the Prez willing to put on the table?

I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people. And it will lose the support of the Iraqi people.

You know what? I don't see how that can possibly function as an effective threat. Maybe it's just me, but I think it's already lost the support of the American people. And from the sound of things, it may no longer have the Iraqi people backing it, either.

Aside from the veiled threats, is this plan a nonstarter? Democrats have been making noise about offering opposition, but will they finally be ready to step up?