America is not waging a losing war in Iraq. It is losing several wars in Iraq that Americans never wagered on.

America is losing the war against Sunni Arabs. Beneficiaries of Saddam's regime and 20 percent of the population, Sunnis were purged indiscriminately from government ranks by occupation authorities.

Officials now regret the blunder, but regret comes too late. Sunni insurgents now comprise the backbone of anti-American attacks, generals say, carrying out lethal IED ambushes and continuously recapturing cities previously "pacified" by US forces.

America is losing the war against al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia. US intelligence knew before the war that Saddam was rebuffing and hunting these terrorists, not courting them, Senate records show.

By invading and failing to stabilize Iraq, the administration enabled al-Qaeda to flourish. Its ruthless operatives freely blast open bridges in Baghdad, tear apart civilians in markets and strike at the heart of government. America is losing the war against Iraq's majority Shiites. Longtime sufferers under Saddam, they were scripted to welcome Americans as liberators.

But Shiites were freed from neither fear nor want as American reconstruction and security efforts fell apart. The Red Cross has reported that living conditions are worse than ever, as corpses lie on the streets and healthcare is almost non-existent.

Amid this madness, American commanders realized a new strategy was needed.

Enter General David Petraeus and his now-unfolding "surge" strategy. The idea is simple: increase troops levels to stop the mayhem.

But the general faces an insurmountable problem: America is losing the war against America, too.

Military analysts outside Bush's coterie have long said that Petraeus' 25,000 troops are not enough for a real push. Recent measures - redeploying National Guardsmen, extending Army tours, dropping recruitment standards - prove that commanders are desperate to fill out their plan with more troops.

"We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to get people to join," an Army official told The New York Times last week.

If commanders are having difficulty finding bodies for their surge, it is because the American people have decided to launch a surge of their own - firmly into the anti-war camp.

Citizens wave the flag and wish soldiers godspeed out of concern for their lives and respect for their sacrifices. But how many are taking their own sons and daughters aside and instructing them, "Go join the fight against evil-doers?"

A war sold as a brisk cakewalk has now spawned a multiplicity of bloody struggles that Americans want no part of. In steering away from enlistment, Americans have shown that they are unwilling to serve as colonial foot soldiers in a futile attempt to "win" these struggles. Even former top commanders are boycotting the campaign. "The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," retired Marine Gen. John Sheehan said after rejecting an administration offer to oversee Iraq and Afghanistan. He is one of at least three former four-star generals who executed a swift exit strategy out of that role last week.

Ordinary soldiers hold no such option to abstain from war. But in a telling 2006 Military Times poll, 59 percent said America should have never invaded Iraq. Only 35 percent said they approved of the president's war leadership.

As Petraeus himself must recognize, his surge is but an ineffective trickle without manpower or morale.

Will he follow in the footsteps of John McCain, who, in a peerless rendition of the old Iraqi Information Minister, strolled through a market flanked by a phalanx of soldiers and gunships in a rigged demonstration of improved "security?"

Or will the general follow the honorable course, defer to reality, and bring the troops home now?

M. JUNAID ALAM is a Sun Chronicle staff writer.