Iraqis get a bad deal from new American policies

The recent indications that the Bush administration will begin to set benchmarks for the Iraqi government to assume a functional role in providing security in Iraq should be seen as a cheap trick to:

1) display adaptability: rather than blindly "staying the course," a refrain that has lost much of its political capital lately, the announcements by Rumsfield and Bush's meetings with generals "show" how the administration is willing to do what it takes to succeed in Iraq (except have sufficient troops, resources or a plan up to now). James Baker's Iraq Study Group report will come out soon and Bush & Co. would prefer not to be caught flat-footed.

2)provide cover for failed US policy: though the ultimate goal of the Iraq enterprise has been downgraded from a free and democratic Middle East to a free and democratic Iraq to an Iraq with a functioning government, this latest twist puts the onus on Iraq to provide all of those things. So much for the United States' obligation to enable a better Iraq --personal security, democracy, development--after Saddam. Conveniently, the buck has been passed to a government that does not have the resources to confront militias and whose police engage in wanton murders.
In this way, Bush's promises not to undermine Prime Minister Maliki are vacuous and therefore perfunctory. The administration has set the Iraqi government up to fail--and allow Bush to say "we've done everything we can but the elected government of Iraq is not holding up its end of the bargain. "

There are numerous indicators that life in Iraq is worse now, as a result of American policy than it was under Saddam. This was no easy task. Indeed there have been elections, but torture, civilian death, destruction, and fear have only increased since 2003 and the most recent trends and policies do not indicate any relief soon.