US President George W. Bush announced in his television address in Washington D.C. on Jan. 10 his new plan of sending more than 21,000 American troops to Iraq to quell the sectarian violence there. Why does Bush still send more troops to Iraq to the defiance of opposition by most Americans, what role can the troop increase play, and what will be the United States' future destiny in Iraq?

Some ace Chinese sociologists, experts and scholars have pooled their opinions and views on these questions during their discussion. They include Shen Dingli, vice-president of the Institute of International Studies with elite Fudan University in Shanghai; Ruan Zongze, vice president of the China Institute of International Studies; Yin Gang, a research with the Institute of West Asian and African Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Eric Hagt, director of the China project of the American World Security Institute; and Ding Gang, a senior editor with the International News Department of the People's Daily, a leading newspaper in China.

Why more troops are sent (to Iraq) now?

Eric Hagt: The troop increase is not a military plan but a political scheme which has something to do with domestic factors in the United States. I personally anticipate this act is aimed to play for time, and why? First, Bush wants to tell his nationals that I am still working hard in spite of all sorts of political restrictions, and please give me more time to settle the Iraq issue. Second, exerting pressure on the Iraqi government to help it win time, so as to alleviate turmoil in the country. Third, setting a trap for the Democrats who have reined Congress. With the additional troop deployment, Congress has to make appropriations in this regard, and it will be their turn to allocate military spending in Iraq. Fourthly, dragging the possible greater and worse turmoil onto the days in wake of the 2008 presidential campaign. Once the next US president is a Democrat, he will earn a bad reputation too. So the troop increase implies more to a "political game".

Yin Gang: In analyzing and observing the situation in Iraq, one has to see more of the latest developments in the country. The decision of the Bush Administration on the troop increase can be said to comply with the aspiration of the Iraqi government, which has kept adjusting its policy since early 2006 with leniency granted to the mid-road force of the former President Saddam Hussein. For instance, against the up to 10,000 Baath Party members who were blacklisted in 2003, those on the blacklist has been reduced to only a little more than 1,000, and this has helped to buy over the hearts of Iraqis. So, Shiites and Sunni Arabs in Iraq have turned vigilant toward Al Qaeda and at times joined the American troops in their operation to annihilate Al Qaeda militants. Therefore, the dispatch of 21,000-odd troops is aimed to reinforce the troop-deployed regions and end the passive situation.

Ruan Zongze: Bush's additional troop dispatch is based on two judgments. One, if the United States withdraws its troop from Iraq now, it will mean a disaster for the country and, two, a violence upsurge can emerge possibly with the execution of Saddam. So Bush takes this opportunity to signal for his capability and resolve to contain violence in Iraq.

Ding Gang: Instead of losing the Iraq war, Bush has acknowledged that he is "not winning in Iraq." There are some reasons for his wording as the war has curbed or restrained the spread and expansion of terrorist forces in the region. At lease, no one in the Middle East now dares to shield Ben Laden and Al Qaeda and, there have been no terrorist attacks in the homeland of the U.S. over recent years. With its troop pullout, the consequences will be beyond the worst imagination. Moreover, the Bush Administration cited the war on terror as an "ideological contention" which is most explicatedly stated in the anti-terrorist national strategy released lately. If the U.S. wants to dominate the world ideologically, it should first of all win victory in Iraq. Americans have all along regarded their democratic system and concepts as "the universally applicable truth." President Bush will not abandon Iraq; as he deems that, from a long-term point of view, the victory has to be won in the battle for ideological contention, and the very soil for generating terrorists has to be removed if the American homeland is to be freed of (terrorist) threats.

Does the troop increase useful?

Eric Hagt: In the United States, people can hardly hear what military role can be played by the troop increase in Iraq, as only very few Americans know what is exactly going on in Iraq. With the occurrence of sectarian violence and uprisings, the situation is rather complex there. In his television address, Bush also alleged that he was fighting with Al Qaeda.

Shen Dingli: Any action taken by the U.S. can be said to play a dual role. For instance, the current troop increase can give rise to new resistance on the one hand and, on the other, it can also possibly stabilize some big Iraqi cities. In his additional troop deployment in Iraq, Bush wants to show is patriotism and, without any pressure for his re-election, he also wants to display his government with a hard-line and unyielding posture.

Ruan Zongze: The dispatch of more than 210,000 troops is only symbolic and it cannot resolve any fundamental problem. The settlement of turmoil in Iraq has to rely on its own military forces. And it's a pity the Iraqi army does not have any combat strength.

Ding Gang: The symbolic role in the Iraq issue is very evident and crucial. Bush wants to use the troop increase to make clear his attitude. Once the symbolic significance is confirmed, there is also such a possibility to send more troops next time. Things can hardly change even if Democrats win the President campaign in 2008. Of course, Bush braves tremendous risks in doing so.

Yin Gang: The situation with the American troops will be difficult and tortuous in the foreseeable future. In Iraq, the key factor to achieve stability is the political posture of its government instead of the US role In 2007, local or partial wars will go on and, if the current troop dispatch is the last blow, Iraq should achieve its basic stability in a year or half-a-year period.

Why Bush does not rethink it over?

Eric Hagt: In respect to a report released by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group two months ago, Bush's current policy, which constitutes a big reversal and firm opposition to the report, means a total defeat for the report. Bush almost disdained two proposals raised in the report. First, the group advocated cooperation between the U.S., Syria and Iran, saying that those countries around Iraq do not like to see internal disorder in Iraq. Moreover, the support rate of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is on decline, so the U.S. should improve its ties with Syria and Iran, so as to let them join to rebuild Iraq. Second, the study group notes that the troop increase is of no use, as Iraq is short of military advisors and specialists to train its security forces, which should be increased. Bush, however, turned a deaf ear to these proposals.

Yin Gang: As for the report by the partisan Iraq Study Group, it represents the consultation outcome of the Democrats and Republicans with different choices and plans, and Bush negated the basic demands of the report after brief mulling over and ponderation. But Bush still has one hope, that is to stabilize Iraq and, with a stabilized Iraq, the settlement of the Middle-east will be easier. On top of this, the U.S. has a still far-reaching strategy, that is, to prevent Iran from steering the Mid-East no matter how heavy the costs will be, so as to take the leading role firmly into its own hands. Recently, the U.S. and Iran tried to rope in Shiites in Iraq, and the troop increase, however, poses a strong military and political pressure on the Iranian faction of the Shiites in Iraq.

Yuan Zongze: The troop increase does not mean Bush's refusal to apologize or admit errors. Henry Kissinger has time and gain criticized Bush, saying what Iraq needs most is stability rather than democracy. The so-called "Greater Middle East Initiative" can only bring new contradictions and disorder to the region. But Bush's logic is that he has at least topped the Saddam regime, and the Iraqi people are now "free", though he has not found any justified reason to launch the war. This notion can be analyzed along with the "Islamic fascism" he asserted in the late 2006, from which one can nose into the political faith of Americans.

Ding Gang: What is the most important and crucial is the fact that Bush has linked the war with the sense of mission among the American people, citing the war as a decisive battle in ideology. The particular strong sense of mission, which represents the most salient characteristics of the United States, is taken as the great pride of the Americans. A recent poll indicates that 61 percent of populace in the U.S. does not favor the troop increase. If one thinks in the other way, 3,000 US servicemen have been killed in the Iraq war, with a increasing media daily reportage of chaos and turmoil in Iraq, there would will be a sizeable number of Americans still for the troop increase in Iraq, which would be unlikely in any other Western nation.

What on earth will be the U.S.' future destiny in Iraq?

Eric Hagt: The United States has met with a tremendous defeat in Iraq, much heavier that what it had experienced during the Vietnam war from 1960s to early 70s, and it can be said its international prestige built over scores of years has bee ruined overnight.

Ruan Zongze: Many people use the Vietnam War to indicate the predicament of the U.S. in Iraq today. Despite many disparities between the two wars, there is at lease one similarity, that is obscurity of Americans in their sense of mission. At the start of the Vietnam War, Americans had not expected that their large-scale military involvement and that they would be bogged down for so long and so deep. The situation is alike in the Iraq war today. Varies problems emerged have trapped the U.S. deeper and deeper into a swamp with increasingly heavier costs.

Ding Gang: the gut issue is whether Iraq will head for stability, and whether a democratic mechanism the U.S. has helped to build for Iraq will produce some effect. It is only less than four years since the stationing of US troops in Iraq. In contrast, it took over a whole decade to gain true stability in Europe following World War II with the Marshall plan put into effect to rebuild it. In view of the whole situation in the Middle-East, the U.S. has done something, which has punched the internal political process in some nations and will affect to some extent the future development of the regional situation. Consequently, what is the most crucial in the Iraq issue is to see whether Americans are patient enough. Now that Bush has linked the issue with the sense of mission for Americans, but the question is whether the Americans have made long-term preparations psychologically.

Shen Dingli: Apparently, the US action against Iraq poses a challenge to the international justice. There are at least four essential conditions involved for the settlement of this issue fundamentally, namely, to restore the dignity of the international community and to defend and safeguard world peace. 1. The US president should issue a statement of apology for its action. 2. The U. S. should bear all the costs for rebuilding Iraq. 3. the International peace-keeping mission should take over Iraq comprehensively and 4. perpetrators of the Iraq war should be subjected to due penalty.

By People's Daily Online