Bush's new plan is same old ill-conceived policy

[ProSense]

New Plans

The Washington Post reported in this morning's edition that "In a speech today unveiling his own revised security plan, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is expected to publicly welcome additional U.S. troops, a condition requested by the Bush administration." One would hope so. Obviously, if we're going to flood Iraq with thousands of additional soldiers, the support of the Iraqi government would seem to be crucial. As the Post continues, "Maliki's cooperation is pivotal to Bush's own efforts." So what do I see in my Associated Press coverage:

Al-Maliki is uneasy about the possible introduction of more U.S. troops, aides said, and he has repeatedly refused U.S. demands to crush the militia of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, one of the prime minister's most powerful backers.

Sami al-Askari, an al-Maliki political adviser, told The Associated Press on Friday that al-Maliki had not acquiesced to a reported White House plan to send as many as 9,000 more U.S. troops to Baghdad alone.

Oops? I'm not even sure. Once again, we see that this whole thing is backwards and horribly ill-conceived. Note that Maliki's new plan and Bush's new plan (which may or may not be the same plan) seem exactly the same as Operation Forward Together, a surge-based Baghdad security plan implemented in June 2006 that failed utterly.

This after Bush twisted Maliki's arm for 45 minutes yesterday.