Jan. 22, 2007 issue - Everyone seems quite certain that George W.Bush's new plan for Iraq is bound to fail. But I'm not so sure. At amilitary level, the strategy could well produce some successes.American forces have won every battle they have fought in Iraq. Havingmore troops and a new mission to secure whole neighborhoods is a goodidea—better four years late than never. But the crucial question is,will military progress lead to political progress? That logic, at theheart of the president's new strategy, strikes me as highly dubious. week's fighting against Sunni insurgents inand around Baghdad's Haifa Street as a textbook example of the newstrategy. Iraqi forces took the lead, American troops backed them upand the government did not put up any obstacles. The Wall StreetJournal's Daniel Henninger concluded that the battle "looked like asuccessful test of unified effort."Butdid it? NEWSWEEK's Michael Hastings, embedded with an American advisoryteam that took part in the fighting, reports that no more than 24 hoursafter the battle began on Jan. 6, the brigade's Sunni commander, Gen.Razzak Hamza, was relieved of his command. The phone call to fire himcame directly from the office of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, aShiite. Lt. Col. Steven Duke, commander of a U.S. advisory team workingwith the Iraqis, and a 20-year Army veteran, describes Hamza as "a truepatriot would go after the bad guys on either side." Hamza wasreplaced by a Shiite.