Bush still does not get it

To persist in a certain direction despite the odds may be dogged determination to some. It can also be sheer foolhardiness to others. And the uncertainty over which best describes the new Bush initiative in Iraq is dividing America.

But the division is not a kind cut down the middle. It is a lopsided slice the thin part of which is what Bush has on his plate to salvage what is left of America's misadventure in Iraq, as well as his slipping grip on his own place in history.

In a television address to Americans and the world on Wednesday, Bush formally announced what many had been expecting - that he was sending in at least 20,000 more US troops into that imploding Middle Eastern cauldron called Iraq.

Bush insists that the war must be won, that the consequences of losing are far too great and may require even greater troop deployments to contain. He was talking about Iran and Syria benefiting from an Iraq that collapses from within.

There is no argument that Iran and Syria will gain greater influence in the region as a result of an Iraqi collapse. That is because America made an Iraqi collapse not only inevitable but, more starkly, synonymous with its own.

There was no reason for the US to invade Iraq, at least not for the reasons enumerated. The Iraq war is a trumped-up case pursued for no other reason than to find a convenient scapegoat for September 11.

Iraq may have been headed by a despot, but in strategic terms that despot kept a good number of other pesky neighbors like Iran and Syria, each of which could prove to be far more formidable foe, in check.

Indeed, that was how America saw the balance of power in the region long before September 11 swung around. Although it now does not want to talk much about it now, America did waltz with Saddam for a while to the chagrin of Iran.

American designs may still be noble to some parts of the world, but not in areas like the Middle East which is a naturally fertile breeding ground for a kind of Islamic extremism that is essentially anti-American.

Any American involvement in the Middle East is always regarded with suspicion at best. Those who embrace America in the region do so for their own interests. There is no unadulterated warmth for the US there.

Even if the reasons for American involvement in Iraq turned out to be true, its welcome in that naturally hostile environment is still not something to shoot the breeze with. Advancing US foreign policy where it has to tread on eggs never works.

How could American foreign policy-makers not see the fact that America is not welcome in the region? As late as a few days before the Bush announcement, Saudi Arabia was already beefing up its air force with new fighter jets, perhaps anticipating a new shift in the balance.

The Saudis are " staunch " American allies only because it needs America to defend its huge oil reserves. Having the world's biggest oil reserves in a region of volatile tempers always places one in some dangerous crosshairs. One has to be practical when it comes to self-defense.

The oil-rich emirates also sidle up to America for the same reason. Only Jordan is pro-US among the poorer Islamic states, for obvious reasons. No oil, no muscle. For the rest of the Middle East, no sacrifice is too great to make if made against America.

Apparently, Bush does not understand that. He still talks about noble American causes in an environment that is naturally predisposed to reject them. The more US troops he sends, the more infuriated the Islamic extremists will be.