President Bush has surprised few with his decision to send more troops to Iraq with a mandate to bring peace to the country by subduing rival factions, clearing out militants and bringing calm to the country.

In light of the worsening security situation in Iraq since the United States-led invasion, we see little to suggest that more force will bring Iraqis the stability and improvement in the quality of life that was promised with the invasion. The unrelenting rate of bloodletting and the chaos that has overtaken Baghdad would indicate the need for a change of policy.

The policy suffers from a seemingly Pavlovian reaction on Mr. Bush's part at the mention of the words 'Syria' and 'Iran'. Mr. Bush clearly cares little for - or genuinely does not believe - critics who see this as a distraction that blames others for the deteriorating security situation in Iraq.

Mr. Bush's continuing accusations about Syrian and Iranian involvement in Iraq underline the conclusions of the Iraq Study Group. These are influential countries in the region. Talking with them would appear to be the better way of trying to resolve the problem.

There is no space for this in Mr. Bush's tunnel-vision view of the Iraq situation. There is little to be gained by the symbolism of the Americans detaining Iranian diplomats to Baghdad, as happened again on Thursday to the embarrassment of the Iraqi government. The approach also ignores the relationship between Iraq's ruling Shias, including many in the government, and Iran's Shia leadership.

Regardless of the military strategy intended for the additional American troops being sent to Iraq, there must now be questions about the likely effect. Clearing insurgents from particular areas, holding the turf and instituting a 'political' settlement cannot in any way lead to subsequent effective control by Iraqi security forces that are undertrained, corrupt and riven with sectarian and tribal differences.

The policy ignores some fundamentals of Iraqi society and which, by now, should be clear to even the most military-minded policymakers in Washington. The policy that intends to take, hold and pacify troubled neighbourhoods will be achieved with significant loss of Iraqi and American lives in militant districts such as the Shi'ite-dominated Sadr City.

Mr. Bush's policy lacks the more enlightened approach that would come from a rethinking that leads to the search for a diplomatic solution. Force of arms, rather than diplomacy, seems to be the only method worth considering. And that appears also to go against the wishes of most Americans who voted late last year. Mr. Bush may consider this not important. He has no more elections to win.

His approach appears to be a myopic intention to leave a legacy that does not suggest failure of his intervention in Iraq. Proving the critics wrong might not be the proper basis on which to design a policy for dealing with Iraq.

We think Mr. Bush - even after making the commitment - should rethink his policy. He is gambling in Iraq. This is the last throw of his dice. Gamblers need both money and luck. Brute force in Iraq will not bring the latter.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.