By Brian Bhol

Sectarian violence continues to engulf Baghdad, prompting the White House to demand the deployment of an additional 21,500 soldiers to quell a potential full-fledged civil war in the Iraqi capital.

The new Democrats oppose this resolution, though they failed in their first two attempts to pass a non-binding resolution condemning the strategy. President Bush has repeatedly chastised critics of the troop surge, claiming non-supporters of his plan are emboldening the enemy. The U.S. Central Command says there are currently 140,000 American military personnel stationed in Iraq. No other allied country is anywhere close to that number, and the United Kingdom reported this week their already-downsized contingent will be scaled back by 1,600 this summer. Even the war’s most ardent supporters in Washington are finally admitting the conflict is not close to being over. The White House acknowledges that our armed forces are being stretched too thin, with reinforcements needed to simply stabilize the capital on a short-term basis. “America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad,” Mr. Bush said during his State of the Union address. “This will require increasing American force levels. So I’ve committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them — five brigades — will be deployed to Baghdad.” So, the message from the Bush administration is we desperately need more bodies on the ground in Iraq to help win the war. Oh, and they also insist a decrease in British troop levels is a positive sign. The rationale for the positive outlook on an otherwise distressing signal goes something like this: The United Kingdom’s decision to shrink its presence demonstrates that the Iraqis are now able to secure Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city, by themselves. Claims that the city is really self-sufficient might still be a guise to expedite a withdrawal from an increasingly unpopular war that has taxed Tony Blair’s popularity as prime minister. Consider that at the start of the war in 2003, the British force contained 40,000 soldiers. That figure was rolled back to approximately 9,000 last year and could drop to as low as 5,500 in the coming months. In an ideal setting, that type of pull-back would be the goal for the United States. If the Iraqis were able to secure every one of the country’s 18 provinces, eventually all coalition members could safely send home their entire force and claim victory. But while Basra may not be rocked by Baghdad-like violence, it was still classified as one of six provinces that contained “serious” difficulties with establishing security last year, according to an internal report by the U.S. Embassy and an Iraqi agency. Even if Basra is at a point where the local authorities can handle security without international assistance, those British troops could be redeployed to Baghdad instead of being relocated to the conflict in Afghanistan. As far as domestic concerns, the 1,600 figure would not replace the 21,500 increase requested by the White House, but it could still mean 1,600 fewer United States soldiers would have to risk their lives. Meanwhile, an assignment in Baghdad for the U.K. forces would not exactly be putting them in extra danger. The Ministry of Defense already approved an additional 1,500 troops to help fight the Taliban, so the total number of troops England provided for the war on terror will remain roughly the same. At a time when our leaders are telling us a greater force is needed, our strongest ally is cutting back its presence. If those British forces were to stay in Iraq, it would make sense on a strategic level. The personnel leaving Basra possess one big advantage over any incoming American forces: they know the country and the tactics of the insurgents. Experience is crucial in this type of warfare, where there is no uniformed enemy and the opponent claims the home-field advantage. It could also be a morale boost for our men and women fighting there to see another country standing side-by-side with them. President Bush has gone on the record saying we need more troops to have any hope of winning in Iraq. Victory may be unattainable regardless of any one military decision, but a foreign force providing a greater presence could save American lives and make the proposed troop surge more palatable for the American people.