The current plan in Iraq -- Bush's plan to "stay the course," though he won't say it anymore -- is not working.

A new study released recently has announced that the year 2006 saw a rise in terrorist attacks and deaths from the previous year, with attacks rising 25 percent and deaths from attacks rising 40 percent.

This statistic is enough to alarm even the most apathetic among us. People may wonder if our country is losing the war on terror. But the statistic is misleading without some background.

Most of the terrorist attacks came as a result of Iraq's sectarian violence. One-half of the terrorist attacks and two-thirds of the deaths from terror in 2006 occurred in Iraq, which means that excluding Iraq, global terrorism actually went down.

What can we attribute to the rise in violence in Iraq? Part of the terrorism stems from an American presence in the country. Members of the al-Qaeda network and other terrorist organizations are making their way over the border simply to attack American soldiers.

But the majority of the attacks have to do with the differing Islamic sects within Iraq. While Saddam was under control, Sunni Muslims reigned over the predominantly Shi'ite country. With Saddam out of control, Shi'ites have a new possibility to run Iraq.

Extremists on both sides of the sectarian divide, however, have been at odds with one another since Saddam's departure, in a sort of "religious civil war," that can't be put under control by conventional military means. In the four years since President Bush declared all "major combat operations in Iraq have ended," and that "in the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed," our military continues to fight an indistinguishable enemy and continues to try to restore order in the region.

Order must be restored in Iraq; that fact is not in dispute. However, who should be responsible for that order is questionable. President Bush would argue that we cannot begin to leave Iraq until we restore order, until the Iraqis can take control for themselves. "Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure," Bush said, "and [it] would be irresponsible" to leave Iraq.

I disagree with the president. I would like to argue that it is because of our presence in Iraq that the Iraqis don't stand up. Why should Iraqi citizens do the work that American troops are doing for them?

There are, in my mind, many good-hearted Iraqis willing to join the Iraqi military and police forces in order to restore peace in the region. They will need to be adequately trained, which is what the American troops there are trying to do now. However, setting a certain date that we will leave the region requires the Iraqis to have their forces ready by that time. This will require the country's government to set quotas for their military or find some other way (such as conscription), to get a large enough military to defend themselves.

Withdrawal does not mean permanent removal from Iraqi affairs. If things start going badly, the United States should reserve the right to return to Iraq to fix the situation. Many may see this as a bad policy, to leave and then return. However, that we may return to Iraq to restore order once again is not a definite (we won“t know what happens until it happens), and it is worth a shot to try to allow Iraqis to rule their own nation.

The current plan in Iraq -- Bush's plan to "stay the course," though he won't say it anymore -- is not working. The Democratic-controlled Congress sent Bush a new plan, along with supplemental funding to the American troops stationed in Iraq. By vetoing this bill, Bush has told the troops that he intends for them to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and that he will stall funding them until he gets his way.

President Bush has told the Democratic Congress, "It is time to put politics behind us and support our troops." Perhaps he should consider heeding his own words: Support for our troops is not keeping them in harm“s way without a clear plan for their return.

> Comments