Obama Surges More Americans To Fight And Die In Collapsing Iraq

That wise policy, seemingly the only prudent course based on the outcome of the horrific quarter-century of American wars in Iraq, is being abandoned by America’s new, most-disliked, president, Barack Obama.
Having the support of just about nobody in America for reengaging in Iraq, and of course, once again just flat out lying to the American people about sending ground troops to Iraq (Obama promised not to), the President announced hundreds more US troops to Iraq on Tuesday, the same day the Iraqi parliament failed in its efforts to give emergency concessions to the Sunni and Kurdish minorities to keep Iraq from falling apart.

Acting like Democrats and Republicans in the United States, another failed democracy, the Kurds and Sunnis rightly pointed out the refusal of the Shia-majority government, led by interim steward, Nouri al-Maliki, to make the Iraqi government inclusive of the other two major ethnic groups. The Shia offered no new concessions, and refused to replace Maliki, so the Kurds and Sunnis walked out of the meeting.

As Reuters put it this morning: “Iraq on the Brink of Collapse”

Today's cheery headline from Reuters. Combined with new information regarding stability and military assessments from the JCS (see below), the parliamentary collapse may turn out to be fatal in terms of the US commitment to holding Iraq together. Although, exactly what "fatal" means, and to whom (and how many) is not entirely clear at this point.
In light of this, we should note that today, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, told reporters that he is waiting on Special Ops assessments to determine what further support (e.g., US troops) the Iraqi government will require from the US Iraq force.

Dempsey also pointed out:
"As I’ve said repeatedly, their ability to find political reconciliation among groups and to present an inclusive face to the people of Iraq -- who are counting on them to lead -- will be an important factor in determining what we do going forward."
This implies an inability to come to a reconciliation on the part of the Iraqi government may limit the US response.

Obama, having already sent what amounted to an Alamo battalion of US embassy guards and military advisors, has surged the troop presence in Iraq, moving rapidly in the direction of preparing the final getaway of US embassy personnel and other Americans, such as US citizen contractors working in Iraq.

On the other hand, if Obama is sneaking up on that other possibility—putting into Iraq the permanent "residual" force neocons had argued would be required indefinitely to keep Iraq from collapsing—it is understandable Obama is acting so far in dribs and drabs, instead of announcing what would be a most unpopular policy, and one that would likely be the final nail in the coffin of Obama's credibility as a competent world leader.

In that event, even if one might argue that American troops forcing Iraq to hold together—just like Saddam Hussein and his military did—is in America's interest, the reaction at home is likely to be harshly, brutally, opposed to a policy of reoccupying a failed state just to keep from admitting America lost the Iraq War—which it obviously did.