Iraqis split on Bush's last gamble

By Clive Myrie
BBC News, Baghdad

In Shia areas the Americans are believed to attract violence

So what do ordinary Iraqis think of President Bush's decision to send around 20,000 extra troops to their country?

Well it depends who you ask, and whether they are Shia or Sunni.

The vast majority of the Shia population here think it is a disastrous idea.

Ask Haythem Zalzala, a pharmacist with impeccable English. He runs a chemist shop in the Karada area of central Baghdad and he summed up the view of many here.

"Nobody's thinking properly about making things better in Iraq. I think it's very wrong to send more soldiers to Iraq. It'll just create more problems, not solve anything."

Deep down Prime Minister Nouri Maliki - also a Shia - feels the same way.

In his most recent face-to-face meeting with President Bush last November, he did not ask for more American troops.

In fact, he wanted to lower the US profile here and take more control of his own forces, anxious to try to put an Iraqi face on efforts to tackle the violence here.

Among the Shia there is a general feeling that the presence of American troops acts like a magnet for the insurgents and militias.

Violence rules

But if you are a Sunni in Iraq, the presence of US troops might actually be comforting.

Shia death squads have menaced Sunni communities and US troops provide the kind of security that Iraqi forces - so far- have not.

Iraqis have seen previous US tactics fail

Well, whatever the Iraqis think, it is a done deal. President Bush believes his so-called "troop surge" can change things on the ground for the better.

But it must be worrying for Washington and Prime Minister Maliki that on Wednesday this week, in some of the worst clashes Baghdad has seen in two years, around 1,000 coalition and Iraqi troops were held at bay by a few hundred insurgents and foreign jihadists.

The battle was for supremacy of an area surrounding one street. Imagine, then, the kind of firepower that might be needed to pacify a whole city of some six million people.

The security situation here is appalling. Sectarian attacks are an everyday fact of life. Baghdad is a city where violence rules - it sours the air people breathe.

Almost four years after the US-led coalition toppled Saddam Hussein it is a terrible indictment that scores and scores of people - mainly Iraqi civilians - are dying every day. People are routinely kidnapped, tortured and then beheaded, with their bodies dumped by the side of the road.

It is a shocking indictment that curfews dictate the rhythm of life here, that the policeman on the beat could turn out to be a member of a death squad, arrest you and kill you.

Squeezing the insurgents

Previous attempts to clean up Baghdad have failed miserably. In the past, coalition and Iraqi troops have pursued a policy of "clear, hold and build".

They have gone into a troublesome area, cleared it - but failed to hold it and build it up. Too often, inexperienced Iraqi soldiers were left in charge. So insurgents and militiamen have simply moved back in.

Coalition forces have been held at bay by Baghdad insurgents

But under the new strategy, once an area is cleared the extra US troops will stay behind, backing up Iraqi forces to hold the area.

This is the so called "ink blot" strategy where eventually cleared areas can merge together, squeezing out the insurgents and militias.

Then the "build" phase can begin. Millions of dollars will be used for regeneration and job creation.

The White House is also confident its new strategy will work because there is a political dimension to it. The US will press the Iraqi government to be more inclusive, to reach out to Sunnis who feel disenfranchised.

Pie in the sky or a sensible attempt to tackle Iraq's problems? We will soon find out.

What is clear is that President Bush's new strategy is being seen as a last ditch bid to win Iraq, to turn around a war effort that has lurched from good, to bad, to terrible.