The reverse of a Christmas annunciation: the White House has divulged that its newest plan for Iraq is to infuse several thousand more military personnel. This hideous parting shot, reported by CNN, the AP, and earliest by CBS News, is to move a 3,500-man brigade from the 82nd Airborne Division to Kuwait soon after the holidays, reportedly to be available immediately for a “surge” into Iraq.

Not stated is whether the buildup would have been mooted if Senator Tim Johnson, Democrat of South Dakota, had not required emergency surgery, opening a slim hope for the administration of flipping the Senate Republican. In a related stupid move, Condoleezza Rice also rejected some sound recommendations of the Iraq Study Group -- talks with Iran and Syria – on the same Friday.  

Moving or keeping more U.S. troops in the Middle East just after New Year’s, seemingly preparation for a limited Iraq buildup, is being billed as a “short-term surge of American forces into Iraq to stabilize the violence” according to the Department of Defense, “for a short time.” The 2^nd Brigade is based at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

Regardless of whether additional personnel are part of a draconian “crackdown” or something quieter, they will be effectively in a state of siege in Baghdad. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell pointed out on Face the Nation on December 17 that additional troops would not provide enough force to control Baghdad. As Powell also pointed out, we had a “surge” last summer without improving the situation.

For additional force to have even slim chance of improving the situation, it would have had to be provided quietly, focused not just on beefing up physical security but also on reinforcing sensible ground operations of quietly assisting Iraqi people with jobs, basic services including water and electricity, and medical attention.

But this most recent decision to have a further force of 3,500 has been delivered maximum attention by Senators McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Rejecting the sound recommendations of drawdown by the Iraq Study Group, McCain and Graham, flanked by Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, held a joint and much publicized press conference touting more troops rather than fewer in Iraq.

In other words, they are spotlighting the provocation, as might be expected from main congressional supporters of the war. The consequence of more “boots on the ground” -- a synecdoche that ignores the trunks attached to those boots -- would be the inevitable result of congesting the combat zone with more targets: more U.S. and Iraqi victims.

More provocation, more targets; more targets, more casualties; more casualties, more provocation. Even if by some miracle troop additions were handled effectively and quietly, they would surely be regarded as provocative. Either the plan mooted is deliberate provocation or not; either way, the outcome is a bloody spurt of violence. Result: more public outcry and disfavor for either Iraq or the war, or both; and out, with the president able to blame his failures on the public.

It would be better to get out now.

The short, and horrible, story here is that the White House and its allies are trying to keep this war alive like a campaign – not like a military campaign, but like a political campaign in which the fading candidate decides to go out with a bang rather than a whimper, firing a few parting shots almost at random and making some headline-grabbing final gesture of meaningless defiance.

You can see why they would want to keep it going, conscience aside. This war has entailed fabulous rewards for a few, grossly enriching the financial sector including those toilers at Goldman Sachs, where a presidential relative works; military and security contractors including a company that hired a presidential uncle for its board of directors; the energy sector, home to administration donors and supporters; and of course Vice President Cheney’s former (and future?) company, Halliburton.

Still, it is astounding the administration could announce this most recent outrage just before Christmas, with “home for the holidays” blitzing over the airwaves every day.

Admittedly the hypothetical explanation advanced here predicates an administration of almost incomprehensible megalomania, hysterical greed and self-importance, delusions of grandeur, and the desire to cover up past defalcations of the public trust with the smokescreen of war as long as possible. But the alternative hypothesis – more rational, if that’s the word -- is that additional troops in the Middle East might not be destined for Iraq. The Pentagon’s most recent announcement, that U.S. ships are being deployed near Iran, gives rise to alternative speculations. (Moving against Iran, which is now about to switch from the dollar to the Euro – a plan also projected by Saddam, shortly before the invasion of Iraq – would display the same attributes, of course.)

In any case, the White House is making maximum use of its interregnum, before new members of Congress have even moved in or finished hiring staff, to deploy operatives including Robert Gates and to make other preparatory moves for expanding the conflict in the Middle East. Is this one reason why the former head of Saudi intelligence and recent Saudi ambassador to the U.S. suddenly winged home to Saudi Arabia?