Does Brit paper know the Iraq plan?

Guardian:

President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration's internal deliberations.

Mr Bush's refusal to give ground, coming in the teeth of growing calls in the US and Britain for a radical rethink or a swift exit, is having a decisive impact on the policy review being conducted by the Iraq Study Group chaired by Bush family loyalist James Baker, the sources said.

Although the panel's work is not complete, its recommendations are expected to be built around a four-point "victory strategy" developed by Pentagon officials advising the group. The strategy, along with other related proposals, is being circulated in draft form and has been discussed in separate closed sessions with Mr Baker and the vice-president Dick Cheney, an Iraq war hawk.

Point one of the strategy calls for an increase rather than a decrease in overall US force levels inside Iraq, possibly by as many as 20,000 soldiers. This figure is far fewer than that called for by the Republican presidential hopeful, John McCain. But by raising troop levels, Mr Bush will draw a line in the sand and defy Democratic pressure for a swift drawdown.

The reinforcements will be used to secure Baghdad, scene of the worst sectarian and insurgent violence, and enable redeployments of US, coalition and Iraqi forces elsewhere in the country.

Point two of the plan stresses the importance of regional cooperation to the successful rehabilitation of Iraq. This could involve the convening of an international conference of neighbouring countries or more direct diplomatic, financial and economic involvement of US allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

...

Point three focuses on reviving the national reconciliation process between Shia, Sunni and other ethnic and religious parties. According to the sources, creating a credible political framework will be portrayed as crucial in persuading Iraqis and neighbouring countries alike that Iraq can become a fully functional state.

...

Lastly, the sources said the study group recommendations will include a call for increased resources to be allocated by Congress to support additional troop deployments and fund the training and equipment of expanded Iraqi army and police forces. It will also stress the need to counter corruption, improve local government and curtail the power of religious courts.

...

This story has other liberal fantasies that are not included in the excerpts. It has already been contradicted by General Abizaid in his testimony today where he has said that he and his commanders did not want additional troops because they want the Iraqis to take responsibility. The report on the additional Iraqi troops has been revealed weeks ago and was endorsed by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. The diplomacy parts are just liberal pie in the sky wishing. Perhaps these points are someone's list of proposals, but I do not think they are on the Pentagon's plans for winning the war. The Guardian like other liberal groups is in denial about the US's ability to win the war in Iraq and about the weakness of the enemy in Iraq, that just lost his Ramadan offensive, not achieving any of its major stated objectives. The Guardian like much of the liberal media is using a faulty scorecard which gives the enemy credit for failed attacks and sets a ridiculous standard for US and allied troops.

Update: The Belmont Club and Chester both comment on this story. The Weekly standard also is quoted in Wretchard's piece and it seems to make a pretty good case for an increased force to space ratio reducing violence in Iraq. Why didn't anyone ask General Abizaid about these statistics at the hearing Wednesday?

...

Consider these data: Between November 2004 and February 2005, according to the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index, the number of coalition soldiers in Iraq rose by 18,000. In that time, the number of Iraqi civilians killed fell by two-thirds, and the number of American troops wounded fell by three-fourths. The soldiers were soon pulled out; by the summer of 2005, American and Iraqi casualties rose again. Later that year, the same thing happened again. Between September and November of 2005, another 23,000 soldiers were deployed in Iraq; once again, both Iraqi and American casualties fell. In the early months of 2006, the number of soldiers fell again, and casualties spiraled up. The picture is clear: More soldiers mean less violence, hence fewer casualties. The larger the manpower investment in the war, the smaller the war's cost, to Iraqis and Americans alike. Iraq is not an unwinnable war: Rather, as the data just cited show, it is a war we have chosen not to win. And the difference between success and failure is not 300,000 more soldiers, as some would have it. One-tenth that number would make a large difference, and has done so in the past. One-sixth would likely prove decisive.

As I have already noted General Abizaid has rejected sending additional troops in his testimony. Perhaps all the various study groups can persuade him to change his mind. It does not seem like a few thousand troops would do much damage to his goal of getting the Iraqis involved.