Like a white knight heading off the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, General Petraeus arrived in Baghdad to take charge as U.S. military commander in Iraq. Armed with a degree in international relations, he is accredited with having written the new U.S. handbook on counter-insurgency. At the hangover ceremony (sorry, read handover) he swept the audience away with rhyming platitudes about "rucksacks of responsibilities," of it being "hard but not hopeless," and so on. After all his studies, his most novel idea appears to fight suicide missions with suicide missions – he intends to make U.S. troops more visible (read vulnerable) by placing them in small outposts in the most dangerous. neighbourhoods!

Listening to Petraeus, one would imagine the war was just beginning and the task was winning hearts and minds still; but unfortunately the pages of the text book have moved on since then. Iraq is in a whole new volume and giving out sweets and drinking tea with the locals is not in the cards for the new phase of the operation. What is more tragic is this is all he seems to have to offer. Otherwise, and the operation already was underway before his arrival; things have not changed essentially from before. It's up the old hill again and back down.

Despite all the hype, Petraeus doesn't offer any new radical departure from the past conservatism and blinkered, linear thinking that characterizes Washington and the Pentagon. Petraeus. is a red herring put in because he is suitable to Washington; appearing to give them some gloss of novelty thinking for the critics. Don't be fooled; this guy has nothing new. Why? Because the U.S. has simply run out of options and there is no other way, but by repeating the same old strategy over and over and again.

On the other hand, moderate modes of thinking and fixed forms of behaviour in conditions of deep chaos and disorder, might appear to be sound judgment and just what is needed! But, in truth, it is so incongruous and inadequate that U.S. strategy almost begins to look more insane and irresponsible than that of the terrorists and insurgents. In truth, its conservative rigidity is total folly, because of its blatant inappropriateness and inefficacy in the face of reality's demands. Repeating the same behaviour over and over and getting the same results is often said to be the first sign of madness. And, what's crazier, is that the U.S. policy makers and all of U.S. know this is exactly what the U.S. is doing – it's the same old failed policy being repeated over and over again.

Denial always leads to repetitive, self-destructive behaviour. But there comes a point when that denial also becomes delusional. Then, we are really on the road to madness. The wooden heads in Washington have devised little more than a Sisyphean strategy for defeat. They push the rock up to the top of the hill and it falls back down. And like Sisyphus, they repeat the pointless process over and over again. The problem now is they rarely reach half-way to the top, before they have to go back down and start again.

Faced with one of most complex counter-insurgency situations in history, all that they can come up with is sending 21,000 extra troops to secure Baghdad. This myopic, straight-jacketed, linear thinking by the rulers of the world's greatest superpower beggars belief. Moreover, the notion that the Iraqi Army is going to be able take over the security of the country - within a few months - can only be entertained by those suffering from clinical delusion or practicing criminal deception.

At the beginning of February, a report by the U.S. government's Iraq National Intelligence Estimate painted a bleak perspective for the country, saying that the situation was, in many ways, classically similar to civil war and in others too complex to be defined as such. It considered that overall things could only get worse in the next 12-18 months and, de facto, gave little hope of the new "surge" making any real difference upon events.

The great Chinese general, Sun Tsu warned aginst attacking walled cities, but today's Iraq, is something Sun Tsu could have ever envisaged. This is because Iraq is largely an urban country and the modern city is a beehive of walled cities within walled cities. Every street, every high rise block or administrative centre becomes a smaller walled city which can be defended and has to be taken. Besieging walled cities is withering. It wears down the nervous system of the attacker five times more than it does the defender. Moreover, it polarizes attitudes into a sense of futility for the aggressor and sense of determination and doggedness for the defender. Amongst the assailed civilian population there is a mental and social closing of ranks as the most basic, the fundamental and last line of defence, the home, the symbol of security and family, is assaulted.

Fighting in such proximity to this especially in modern warfare and the growth of animosity and contempt for the aggressor is draining on the spirit and purposefulness of the troops. In fact, it is this, and not the physical tours of duty, which is bringing the U.S. Army to "breaking point," as their Generals have warned. The current strategy and tactics of the U.S. is toward a pointless and worthless end goal. There isn't the chance in hell of a "win-win" or even a "win-lose" outcome. There is nothing but "lose-lose" for the Americans and their soldiers know it. The situation for the Americans is an enigma of war. Formerly, they occupied the city, yet they have not conquered it. They patrol the streets, but cannot the scale the "walls." The U.S. is an elephant with chicken's legs. They cannot run and they cannot standstill.