With some of its own leaders recently acknowledging its plummeting decline, the once-proud… With some of its own leaders recently acknowledging its plummeting decline, the once-proud “neo-conservatism” movement is truly in its death throes. Its top think tank, the Project for the New American Century, is practically defunct now with only one employee.

On this sinking ship, embittered neo-conservative gurus like Richard Perle will point a surly finger at their bungling figureheads in the Bush administration as the people responsible for ruining their exceptionalist vision for the world by botching the Iraq War, their pet project. Yet, even as these once-steadfast Bush supporters throw in the towel, the chief figurehead himself is trying for one last great comeback before what little is left of his street cred goes up in flames.

Just when it seemed like the White House was finally coming around to acknowledging what a debacle the occupation of Iraq has turned out to be, President Bush returned to his old consistent form on Wednesday night with a nationally televised speech declaring his new Iraq strategies.

After paying some lip service to the virtues of bipartisanship and accepting responsibility for mistakes made, the president ultimately returned to his same old, tired mantra of “Victory” or “Bust.” Pledging to pump roughly 21,000 more troops into Iraq, mostly around Baghdad, he is once again essentially turning his back on rising criticism.

Of course, this still isn’t a shocker coming from the ever-consistent Bush, nor is his plan to expand the Iraq campaign to engulf neighboring countries as well. Iran and Syria are perhaps most worrisome this time around. Iran and Syria, the aspiring bad boys of the Middle East in the eyes of American policy, were fingered in Bush’s speech as terrorism accomplices. Hours after Bush’s address, it was reported that American forces raided Iran’s consulate in northern Iraq, confiscating documents and arresting five employees.

Iran and Syria may well be guilty of supporting Iraqi insurgents. But at this point in the game, and most of all in a region like the Middle East, maybe the United States ought to have learned something about picking its battles wisely. Picking scuffles with Iran, in particular, is not a great strategy when we’re already so tied down in Iraq. Everything comes down to that now; every strategy, it seems, has got some vicious catch to it.

So therein lies the big conundrum for America’s Iraq strategy – is there really any way to “move forward” in Iraq? Bush seems to think there still is and is still stuck believing that simply more manpower is going to quickly fix things up and save him from having a Vietnam War-type legacy hang over his head for the rest of his days.

But unlike Vietnam, in Iraq there isn’t even the convenience of having a unified, single-minded enemy. Soldiers’ testimonials run rampant these days about how it’s getting impossible to choose a side, as they simply observe or are killed by the crossfire between rival insurgency groups.

On top of that, we’re now beset with a double-edged guilt trip over the consequences of the war. Stay in Iraq and more American soldiers get slaughtered in civil war crossfire. Pull out and we’d supposedly be condemning the Iraqis to an even more destitute and darker fate than they are already in.

Right now I have to side with a speedy withdrawal from Iraq, because the whole civil war ordeal seems like something that Iraq is going to have to get out of its system, U.S. occupation or not. The way the Bush administration is proceeding, raising the stakes and staying in this war for much longer might just build up into an even worse, expanded war and could cause just as much trouble as an unoccupied, even more lawless Iraq. Either way you go about it, it’s going to be hideously unfair.

E-mail Konrad at [email protected]