Iraq Strategy Review Focusing on Three Main Options

Washington Post ^ | 9 December 2006 | Robin Wright and Peter Baker

[shrinkermd]

As pressure mounts for a change of course in Iraq, the Bush administration is groping for a viable new strategy for the president to unveil by Christmas, with deliberations now focused on three main options to redefine the U.S. military and political engagement, according to officials familiar with the debate.

The major alternatives include a short-term surge of 15,000 to 30,000 additional U.S. troops to secure Baghdad and accelerate the training of Iraqi forces. Another strategy would redirect the U.S. military away from the internal strife to focus mainly on hunting terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda. And the third would concentrate political attention on supporting the majority Shiites and abandon U.S. efforts to reach out to Sunni insurgents.

As President Bush and his advisers rush to complete their crash review and craft a new formula in the next two weeks, some close to the process said the major goal seems to be to stake out alternatives to the plan presented this week by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group...

But the growing undercurrent of discussions within the administration is shifting responsibility for Iraq's problems to Iraqis. Sources familiar with the deliberations describe fatigue, frustration and a growing desire to disengage from Iraq....

"None of us see the situation in Iraq as favorable. We all see it as extremely difficult," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday.

Bush will devote most of next week to his Iraq review. He plans to visit the State Department on Monday to consult with his foreign policy team, then he will host independent Iraq experts in the Oval Office. The next day, he will hold a videoconference with U.S. military commanders and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad in Iraq. He will travel to the Pentagon for more consultations on Wednesday.

[shrinkermd]

I guess it is "talk and walk" in some form or manner.

[angkor]

I hope the Pentagon recommendations will include a massive step-up in the effort to find and kill insurgents.

[Steel Wolf]

The major alternatives include a short-term surge of 15,000 to 30,000 additional U.S. troops to secure Baghdad and accelerate the training of Iraqi forces.

This is the only feasible strategy of the three, and still not without risk. Simply put, it's a bit of a strain for us to drop another 30,000 troops anywhere right now, and there's no guarentee this will dent the problem. If this falls though, it's going to strengthen the perception that we're in a fight we can't win.

Another strategy would redirect the U.S. military away from the internal strife to focus mainly on hunting terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda.

Letting the country fall apart to hunt al-Qa'ida is dumb on two levels. First, we need specialized units and resources to hunt AQI, and they're already comitted. It just takes time to gather the intelligence needed to find them. Putting more troops on the problem isn't going to help noticibly, but it will allow chaos to spread elsewhere. Not a good trade.

And the third would concentrate political attention on supporting the majority Shiites and abandon U.S. efforts to reach out to Sunni insurgents.

Giving the Shiites the standing to go Rwandan on the Sunnis in 2007. Also not a great plan. This would destabilize the country and soon after, the region, faster than anything we could do. All for the benefit of Iranian proxies and Iran itself.

[Steel Wolf]

I hope the Pentagon recommendations will include a massive step-up in the effort to find and kill insurgents.

Don't count on it. The military is slowly coming to the realization that the harder we hit the tar baby, the worse it's getting. Hitting hard does have it's place, but it's the Special Operations guys who should be running that show, not the conventional military.

[expatpat]

I am for the second option (we should stay out of civil internecine Muslim strife) and dead set against the third option (we shouldn't favor one side in this sectarian cr*p, especially pro-Iranian a*hles).

[Steel Wolf]

Another strategy would redirect the U.S. military away from the internal strife to focus mainly on hunting terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda.

Letting the country fall apart to hunt al-Qa'ida is dumb on two levels. First, we need specialized units and resources to hunt AQI, and they're already comitted. It just takes time to gather the intelligence needed to find them. Putting more troops on the problem isn't going to help noticibly, but it will allow chaos to spread elsewhere. Not a good trade.

I should point out that this is likely a code for saying "Cut back on all missions except hunt al-Qa'ida", making it the cute sister of 'Cut and Run'. We can't really beef up the hunt AQ mission, since it's a very specialized task that takes specialized troops and resources, and they're already in the game. Cutting down on everything else would keep the popular part of the war up and running, and let everything else go to hell.

That, by itself, is a remarkably stupid plan. If you instead make it a "Hunt al-Qa'ida, turn all other missions into 'train Iraqis'", then the plan has some merit, and would produce good long term results for us.

[Steel Wolf]

Well, I can see these three options are drawing a real firestorm of attention and excitement. Or is that just the crickets chirping?

[corlorde]

I see it changing little. What I see is, our wording of what we are doing, is changing. If the focus on the wording, like saying, "we are now committing more resources to hunting down terrorists in Iraq, and staying away from internal strife" is just a change of focus on the words, and doesn't really play on the ground. We are already standing back in most cases when it comes to internal strife. Unfortunately, the media's focus is the internal strife, and the three key plans doesn't address the media much. People are still focusing on what's going wrong. Real results though might be seen if we commit more to training Iraqi troops. That action, we can physically see. Joe sitting on his couch wants things he can physically see, and not spin on words. Most are not as savvy as the average Freeper, and doesn't understand political spin and empty suit pontifications.

[Steel Wolf]

Joe sitting on his couch wants things he can physically see, and not spin on words. Most are not as savvy as the average Freeper, and doesn't understand political spin and empty suit pontifications.

Your first part is entirely correct. Even if people don't understand exactly what they're seeing, they like seeing something. Americans are results oriented people, and they don't really care how you make the McNuggets, so long as you get it done.

As far as the second part, I think that's generally true, but over the last few years, people are catching on to the idea. They sense that a lot more tinkering with details is going on than major plan overhauls. They may not understand the specifics, but broadly speaking, they're starting to figure out that the Administration likes to tweak details more than make major turns.

[EGPWS]

Another strategy would redirect the U.S. military away from the internal strife to focus mainly on hunting terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda.

Which will lead us right back to Baghdad.

[shrinkermd]

Yes, it does seem whenever potential actions are discussed, the yawns begin. On the other hand there are screaming headlines every time some suicidal Muslim blows himself up along with some other Muslims (usually) or our soldiers (more rarely).

The MSM loves blood and guts as a means to defeating President Bush and America.

The bad news is the President will have a hard time convincing anyone the new policies are better than the old policies. The good news is no one seems willing to "cut and run" as an alternative. A Hegelian dialectic would demand the outcome will be we "talk and walk."

[sam_paine]

Escalation, war protests, new plans for a moon landing!!!! IT'S THE SIXTIES AGAIN OH-YEAH BAY-BEE! Cue Mo(hammad)-Town!

The major alternatives include a short-term surge of 15,000 to 30,000 additional U.S. troops to secure Baghdad and accelerate the training of Iraqi forces.

... brother, brother, brother
There's far too many of you dying
... Oh my father, father
We don't need to escalate
You see war is not the answer
For only love can conquer hate


---

[shaking head in disbelief]

[PISANO]

If this falls though, it's going to strengthen the perception that we're in a fight we can't refuse to win.

[Steel Wolf]

Six of one, half dozen of the other, as far as the terrorists are concerned.

[Steel Wolf]

Six of one, half dozen of the other, as far as the terrorists are concerned.

[LZ_Bayonet]

I don't have the in-depth knowledge you do on this, so please set me straight where I am in error:

As I recall,

- AQ set out to start this sectarian battle, by enlisting Sunnis to work with it's people to attack Shiites.
- The Shiite's took a lot of hits for quite a while, with Sistani asking them not to retaliate. (Apparently Iran only has influence with Mookie and not Sistani.)
-Mookie disagreed with Sistani, and gained strength from Shiite's seeking retaliation and protection, with the former top guy, Sistani, eventually washing his hands, shutting his mouth, and losing his leadership position.
-So now we have the Kurds on the sidelines, Iran in charge of the Shiite's in Iraq (via Mookie), and SOME of the Sunni allied with AQ in either fighting the occupiers or trying to keep from being ruled by Shiites.
-We have SOME Sunni tribal chiefs realizing they cannot win against the Shiites and therefore cooperating WITH THE COALITION in fighting AQ (democracy being their best bet,remember how the Sunni voted in the 2nd election).
-We don't want Iran to run any of Iraq (We supported Saddam in his war against Iran. The just-retired Sec. of Defense met with Saddam during that war.)
- Neighboring Sunni countries do not want Iran to win in Iraq.
-Iran is now winning this war.
- We want Iraq to be as much of a democracy as is possible, because the original goal was to change business-as-usual in the ME.
- Syria, and of course Saudi Arabia, participated with the Coalition in the Gulf War.
- Syria and Saudi Arabi don't want a democracy, or anything like it in the ME, but they don't want Iran to win either.

It seems to me that we need more Sunni countries adopting the same conclusion that some Sunni chiefs have come to, i.e. better to work with the occupiers in fighting AQ, because Iran winning is the real problem.

Seems to me that Baker's "flip Syria" may be the key. Getting the surrounding Sunni countries to agree, like some Sunni chiefs, that, above all else, Iran must not win, even if a "democracy" in Iraq is a possible outcome.

The "flipped" Sunni countries now fight AQ, and urge the Sunni in Iraq to negotiate an end to the sectarian violence. A negotiated end to the violence does not serve Iran's interests, but in fighting a settlement, Iran's true intentions eventually become apparent. Sistani, or his supporter (Hmmmm, wasn't there a meeting in the Oval Office this week with a Shia cleric, while the VP flew back from a 2 hour meeting in Saudi Arabia?) regain power and influence.

A federal, "democratic", unified Iraq becomes the only alternative that leave all parties winning something, except possibly Iran. Thus explains Baker thrusting his hand in the air and loudly urging, "Flip Syria!"

Now, the military strategy: The military strategy FOLLOWS the political strategy, and reactions to it by the various parties.

[MNJohnnie]

I guess it is more of the "political leak" confused for being fact.

Let see, the leak about Fitzmus, the Baker Clowns, the 09-11 Comission and a bunch of other stuff have been partially or wholly nonsense yet here we are still taking the "Unnamed sources" seriously. What a bunch of butt clowns the Junk Media is.

[MNJohnnie]

"Iran is now winning the war."

Pure BS. Utter nonsense with not even a even a nodding acquaintance with reality. What the problem is is Americans confuse what they watch on TV with how war actually is. What is going on in Iraq is pretty common to war in most parts of African, South America and parts of Asia. Iraq, not bombers dropping precision guided missiles from 30,000 feet, is what most modern war actually looks like.

The failure here is the American political class, and their cheerleaders, who simply cannot seem to wrap their minds around the fact that REAL war is NOT a made for TV Miniseries where everything works flawlessly and is over in 145 mins. It would be REALLY useful if the loudest screamers about Iraq would finally bother to actually learn ANY facts about the topic rather then just scream their "Military strategy from watching Rambo Movies" dogmas over and over and over.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Security_Force


http://icasualties.org/oif/

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspxs


Actually the Baker Commission did not bother to discover a single thing about the actually situation in Iraq and merely regurgitate all the various nonsense published by the DC Media and the various never actually been to Iraq DC based "Think Tanks"

So yes, if the sum total of your understanding of Iraq is based totally on what you read in the US Junk Media, then the Iraq Surrender Group's analysis make sense.

Maybe instead of listening to all the senile old dinosaurs hanging out in DC the usual Freeper Patton wanna bees MIGHT actually start listening to the people ON THE GROUND in Iraq? Such as Gen Abizaid who came back from Iraq in Mid Nov and told John McCain and the rest Dinocons they are complete idiots on Iraq.

Rather then regurgitate the Editorial board of the Washington Post and the NY Time Military Strategies, maybe the Dinocons MIGHT finally actually bother to learn even the BASIC facts about Iraq?

[Steel Wolf]

I'm a little short on time, or I'd give you some more in depth answers. You're more or less correct on everything, but I'd add the following to clarify.

-Iran is now winning this war.

I wouldn't say that, exactly. It's more accurate to say that they're laying the groundwork to win the peace more effectively than anyone else. While they want to keep it somewhat destabilized, to encourage us to leave, the real threat will be once peace does arrive.

- Syria and Saudi Arabi don't want a democracy, or anything like it in the ME, but they don't want Iran to win either.

These countries want regime survival more than anything else, and a major part of that is ensuring the regime survival of your neighbors. Sharing a border with stabile tyrants is a lot safer than one with rotating democratic governments, from their point of view. They don't want Iran to win, for a number of reasons, but they don't really want anyone to start shaking things up, for any reason whatsoever.

Seems to me that Baker's "flip Syria" may be the key. Getting the surrounding Sunni countries to agree, like some Sunni chiefs, that, above all else, Iran must not win, even if a "democracy" in Iraq is a possible outcome.

Syria is nominally a secular state, but the ruling Ba'athists are Alawite, not Sunni. They're not really operating on the same religious page as anyone else in the region. If Syria was a Sunni state, and not a secular dictatorship, flipping them vis a vis Iran might be an easier sell. As it is, Syria looked around, saw Iran as the rising star, and allied with them.

[LZ_Bayonet]

I can go along with your explanation of Iran's current status in Iraq. And thanks for the clarification on Syria's religious situation.

Here is some additional just found on another post that relates to my posting. All these broken eggs might end up producing an omlet after all.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1751086/posts

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal warned earlier this week that Iraq "poses a great challenge to the region, its security and its future" and called for "halting all forms of interference in Iraq" — an apparent reference to Syria and Iran.

Each has ties with key factions in Iraq: Iran with Shiite Muslim parties that dominate the U.S.-backed government and have militias blamed for much of the sectarian bloodshed, and Syria with Sunni Arabs, who are the main force in the insurgency. But both Iran and Syria deny supporting violence in Iraq.

Kuwaiti columnist Youssef al-Rashed expressed alarm Saturday that suggestions from the Iraq Study Group could lead to a too rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces, saying that could hurt Persian Gulf nations.

"If the United States is unable to manage the situation shrewdly, any sudden or premature pullout would result in a security vacuum that would affect us all," al-Rashed wrote in the newspaper Al-Anba.

Kuwaitis are nervous that Iraq's Sunni-Shiite bloodshed could spill over to their country, where Shiites make up 30 percent of the people. Similar concerns are shared by Saudi Arabia, which is up to 15 percent Shiite, and Bahrain, a Sunni-ruled island kingdom in the Persian Gulf with a Shiite majority.