VZCZCXRO6682
OO RUEHDE RUEHDIR
DE RUEHAD #0044/01 0121147
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 121147Z JAN 07
FM AMEMBASSY ABU DHABI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 8028
RUENAAA/SECNAV WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/WHITE HOUSE NSC WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEHZM/GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL COLLECTIVE
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 1141
RHRMDAB/COMUSNAVCENT
RHWSMRC/MCF01 SACCS USCINCCENT MACDILL AFB FL

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ABU DHABI 000044 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR NEA/ARP; NEA/PPD; NEA/RA; INR/R/MR; PA; INR/NESA; INR/B; 
RRU-NEA 
IIP/G/NEA-SA 
WHITE HOUSE FOR PRESS OFFICE; NSC 
SECDEF FOR OASD/PA 
USCINCCENT FOR POLAD 
LONDON FOR ERELI 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OIIP KMDR TC
SUBJECT:  MEDIA REACTION: NEW STRATEGY FOR IRAQ 
 
¶1.  Summary:  "Al-Khaleej" views Bush's new strategy for Iraq as 
inverted logic.  The editorial notes that the president has lost his 
credibility and that no one inside or outside of Iraq is willing to 
give him a hand.  "Al-Bayan" opines that Bush ignored all advice and 
decided to escalate.  A columnist in "Al-Khaleej" states that the 
only way the new strategy can be understood is that the President 
and his team are in a hurry because they are running out of time. 
"Gulf News" states that Bush's new strategy refuses to acknowledge 
just how serious the situation is.  End Summary. 
 
¶2.  Under the headline "The up-side-down logic", Sharjah-based 
pan-Arab daily "Al-Khaleej" (circulation 90,000) editorialized on 
1/12: 
 
"Bush uses an inverted logic to promote his new strategy that does 
not persuade his allies and at the same time does not deter his 
enemies.  For example, he tells some Arab nations that they must 
realize that America's defeat in Iraq will create new areas of 
tension for extremists and a strategic threat to their survival. 
The president here forgets two important things:  one is that his 
war against Iraq is the main reason for the present violence and 
extremism, and he was warned by many that his war would create 
problems for everyone.  Yet he ignored this, hoping to reformulate a 
new Middle East.  Second he and members of his administration urged 
everyone to give in to his plan for reform in the region, clearly 
telling that once his plans are set for Iraq, Iraq will be turned 
into a launching pad to topple nations and reformulate others 
according to his plan.  He made his victory in Iraq more dangerous 
to regional and international regimes than his defeat.  However, now 
he wants to convince everyone with a totally contradictory story. 
Bush has no credibility inside and outside of his country.  Everyone 
in Iraq or outside is angry at his policies and skeptical of his 
intents.  No one is willing to facilitate his mission 
¶3.  Another editorial in Dubai-based Arabic daily "Al-Bayan" titled 
"Bush's security options in Iraq" (circulation 85,000) noted: 
 
"The American president reiterated it yet again.  All the obstacles, 
failure, fearful deterioration of the whole situation and all the 
warnings, objections and recommendations that were presented as 
possible breakthroughs were not enough to convince Bush change his 
line.  He rejected all the available alternatives and decided to 
escalate and increase the number of his troops...  Bush decided to 
experiment with what has been under trial.  The new element is that 
security will be put in the hands of the Iraqis by next November. 
The ball is their court and only political reconciliation among the 
various factions will save Iraq from a new catastrophe." 
 
¶4.  Under the headline "Bush's Plan: To throw the dice", Dr. Hassan 
Madan wrote in Sharjah-based pan-Arab daily "Al-Khaleej" 
(circulation 90,000) 1/12: 
 
"Bush decided to ignore all recommendations by the Baker committee 
and recommitted to his policy in Iraq adding more factors despite 
his negative assessment of the situation there holding himself 
responsible for all mistakes.  The plan encountered a fierce 
campaign of criticism inside the U.S.  To a great extent, it seems 
that President Bush and the neo conservatives behind him draw his 
policies in a race with time.  The period left in his second term is 
short and this puts the team in an awkward and tough situation.  It 
obstructs their mission in Iraq especially that they are in a hurry 
to direct a military strike against Iran.  Bush's new policy in Iraq 
can only be understood in this context." 
 
¶5. Under the headline "Bush hoisted by this own petard", Dubai-based 
English language daily "Gulf News" editorialized 1/12: 
"Not from the Oval office but from the White House library, a 
chastened US president addressed his nation.  Gone was the "bring 
'em on" arrogance, instead an admission of mistakes but, 
disturbingly, there remained the refusal to acknowledge just how 
serious the situation is." 
"Iraq was previously described by Bush as the frontline on the war 
on terror.  Even Bush does not believe that nonsense any more, or 
else why the small troop surge?  The 20,000 extra troops will make 
no practical difference to securing Baghdad, not if the numbers 
already there cannot.  The surge - the White House cannot call it an 
escalation as Vietnam was "escalated" and the word is banned in 
White House lexicon - is a cynical ploy by an exhausted president to 
show he can still issue orders that contradict common sense.  Bush 
 
ABU DHABI 00000044  002 OF 002 
 
 
has ignored the message of the mid-term elections, the Iraq Study 
Group, Congress, his own top generals and world opinion." 
"Death squads roam Baghdad's streets.  On Tuesday, a typical day, 
more than 40 bodies were found.  This so-called surge will not 
change the dire situation; no death squads will halt their macabre 
work, the ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods will not cease.  Bush 
has little time for history.  But no other president has experienced 
such a wartime catastrophe since the hapless fellow Texan, Lyndon 
Baines Johnson, whose political reputation never recovered from 
Vietnam." 
"The trouble is Iraq is far worse than Vietnam.  America's loss of 
prestige in the Middle East damages it to a far greater extent than 
defeat at the hands of the Viet Cong.  Bush's address lacked 
strategy and vision. Instead of engaging Iraq's neighbors he 
threatens them.  Instead of acknowledging the collapse of order in 
Baghdad, he denies its severity by sending so few troops.  He has 
spurned good advice and taken the wrong course." 
 
 
SISON 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MR 12 Jan 2007           UNCLASSIFIED