The next Battle of Baghdad

It looks like the Iraq War could take another dramatic turn later this year. The Sunday Times is reporting this:

THE American military is planning a “second liberation of Baghdad” to be carried out with the Iraqi army when a new government is installed...

The battle for Baghdad is expected to entail a “carrot-and-stick” approach, offering the beleaguered population protection from sectarian violence in exchange for rooting out insurgent groups and Al-Qaeda.

Sources close to the Pentagon said Iraqi forces would take the lead, supported by American air power, special operations, intelligence, embedded officers and back-up troops.

If at first you don't succeed, try again. But at what cost? With the loss of how many more lives? The invasion of Iraq was swift, but the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq has been -- let's be blunt about it -- a failure. And now there's this, which smacks of desperation. Of course, there will be endless spin about how the Iraqis are taking charge and establishing order, about how the new government is finally ready to govern on its own, about how the U.S.-trained Iraqi forces are taking the lead, allowing the U.S. to pull back, about how the job has been done, mission accomplished.

And we know what this is really about: "[Bush and Rumsfeld] are under intense pressure to prove to the American public that Iraq is not slipping into anarchy and civil war. An effective military campaign could provide the White House with a bounce in the polls before the mid-term congressional elections in November. With Bush’s approval ratings below 40%, the vote is shaping up to be a Republican rout."

Regardless, this is all far too little far too late. Baghdad isn't Fallujah or some remote Iraqi town, and it won't be pacified easily (not that Fallujah was or even has been). Given both Bush's personal unpopularity and the unpopularity of the Iraq War generally, Americans won't stand for a prolonged, agonizing battle that could go terribly wrong, a battle that will have to be fought neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood, house-by-house, a battle that would likely be extremely bloody.

A full-out Battle of Baghdad could work. Repeat: could. But a lot would have to go right, and I'm just not sure that it can or will. Do we have any reason to have so much confidence in the Iraqi forces? Do we have any reason to believe that U.S. forces will be able to conduct such an extensive campaign with public and political support at home? Given all that's happened thus far, do we have any reason to believe that Baghdad can be pacified at all? The U.S. may try to hide behind the Iraqis, but no one will be so delusional as to think that the U.S. isn't calling the shots. So couldn't a U.S.-propelled campaign to pacify Baghdad only stir up even more opposition?

How much is Bush willing to sacrifice, how many lives is he willing to risk, both American and Iraqi, for the sake of his own political life, for the sake of his own popularity and legacy? Is he willing to wage a full-out Battle of Baghdad as a last-ditch effort to resurrect his presidency and to prevent massive Republican losses this fall?

Consider that political calculus.