You know that things in Iraq aren't really working when you realize that the plans for victory are continually being revised. The latest alteration, as foreseen by the U.S. military and General David Petraeus, flies right in the face of the notion that we're preparing to downsize our presence in that country. A title for the new plan might well be Operation Hand-Off. Once again, the idea is to pass off security responsibility to the Iraqi's themselves, though now we learn that in the best case scenario, this is seen as taking place in 2009. Which means, of course, that the Iraq war itself will be handed off to Mr. Bush's successor. Somehow I don't think that Republican candidates are cheering in the isles at this development.
If we follow the Petraeus-Crocker map, Iraq will continue to be a major issue in the '08 campaign. So if there's substantial progress, that may bode well for the GOP. But given that the strategy itself is yet one more attempt in a seemingly endless series of corrective measures, the war certainly isn't an issue you'd be eager to run on (just ask John McCain). And what are the chances that the new way forward will yield the results that all the others haven't? From the AP:
Stephen Biddle, who was a member of a group that advised Petraeus last spring on development of the strategy, said in a recent interview that he saw little chance of success if the U.S. military continued to try to establish security, unconditionally, across all of Baghdad. A better approach, Biddle said, is to use U.S. military power more selectively in a "carrot-and-stick" approach that rewards insurgent groups that choose to accept offers of a cease-fire. They would not be forcibly disarmed; they would choose to stop fighting. Those who refuse to cooperate would be dealt with militarily.What percentage of Americans favor an immediate withdrawal of Iraq again? Now there's a margin of victory.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. I think Iraq is a true catch-22 situation.
On one hand in last night's debate Richardson was arguing that US-forces should just completely leave Iraq. Our presence it not helping Iraq move forward.
The successes of the 'surge' are very localized improvements for individual neighborhoods. They shift fighting elsewhere and doen't address the underlying power conflict and political stalemates at the top.
Iraq is in need of an in-country political solution and U.S. military cannot bring that about. The decision of the Iraqi legislature to dismiss for the hot summer months shows that they have no true sense of urgency to solve their sectarian and national problems. Departure of U.S. forces will either wake them up -- or allow them to proceed into a full-out civil war if that it will takes before the bulk of Iraqi's demand and support something better.
But... loss of even the limited Iraqi oil supply and spill-over violence across borders that would happen during all-out sectarian civil war couldn't come at a worse time. An Iraqi conflict will spread into it's major oil producing neighbors. Sectarian violence will cross borders in the event of an Iraqi sectarian civil war because the various factions see support for the other factions coming from Iran, SaudiArabia, or Kurdistan, the borders are sufficiently porous, and significant targets are readily found. This at a time when Saudi oil capacity levels have already been in slow decline for the past 8 months and major finds of 'easy oil' haven't occured for decades. Reports are beginning to show that the global oil supply 'peak' may have occured in Dec 2006. And if so it has occured when China and India are in the midst of transformational economic growth - based on oil. An unstable middle-east will push global oil supplies and energy costs into an immediate supply & cost crisis that will have destabilizing effects on global economics, trade, and our entire oil-based way of life. If stability in OPEC nations melts down it's anybody's guess as to how quickly oil hits $100 a barrel - or much more.
Maintaining a stable (even if slowly dwindling) global oil supply for the next 10-30 years is the only way we'll have time to build and transition in a *controlled* way to alternative energy sources and technologies.
So on the other side of the catch-22 we can't just withdraw all troops and let the middle east blow up behind us.
So the real question becomes, how can we remove/replace the USA troops in Iraq to force Iraq to move on with it's political solution(s) while at the same time preventing sectarian war across the heart of the Middle East and the global oil-supply crisis that it would facilitate?
Sigh. Send your thanks for this mess to Cheney, Rumsfield, and G W Bush. I believe getting a US-friendly government and establishing US military-bases in Iraq in preparation for the 'peak-oil' supply crisis that Cheney believed would start between 2005-2010 is why Bush/Cheney really went into Iraq to begin with. The focus on soft evidence on WMD's was just their choice for a well-executed marketing effort to build public support for entering Iraq. But why/how we're now in Irag is now just a history thesis topic. The USA has already forcibly removed the Hussian straightjacket and allowed Iraq to break into pieces with no working infrastructure. Now what?
Sunni's/Shite's don't trust and won't work with each other. Neither side will allow the other to proceed with an effective government because they're afraid their own group will be subjutated.
Going back to a 'caretaker' government of some form with a UN peacekeeper forces and oil revenues going into national 'trust' coffers may be the only solution to try to re-establish working infrastructures and restore public safety without giving Iraqi's any 'invader' country as a target. But it must be apparent to all Iraqis and to the world at large that restoring order in the Middle East during the starting oil supply crisis is a truely global concern and is not being done in ways that primarily benefit any one country (the USA).
But realisticly I don't think there is time to educate and build support for such a plan. It doesn't fit in sound bite images or messages. Sort term politics will likely force a destablizing change first - like a major drawdown of USA troops before a stable Iraq exists. In terms of world tensions we ain't seen nothing yet...
Pat Miller at 2:22PM on Jul 24th 2007
2. No one wants to stay in Iraq longer than needed. To leave Iraq before the job is done would be a crime, leaving millions of Iraqis vulnerable to the predations of terrorists and creating a power vaccum that Iran can exploit.
Why Democrats would want to run on that rather than success?
Short term solutions from short term thinkers.
Pete at 2:36PM on Jul 24th 2007
3. If only I could write as well as Pat....(SIGH)...
Preventing the inevitable.
That's all I have to say for now.
(Pat's a tough act to follow. Good job Pat.)
vegastracon at 2:42PM on Jul 24th 2007
4. It's exactly as the President has claimed all along: the war will be the next administration's problem to solve. But at least the Petraeus plan realizes 2009 as the limit for the current strategy.
Steve Bonomo at 5:56PM on Jul 24th 2007
5. is it 2009? does pentagon really have a "real" plan?...cause you know bush/cheney doesn't. and who is involved in this plan? what is the goal? is it a workable plan? does it require more military troops? how many? i hope they answer some questions before they just jump in.
iamchavira at 1:36AM on Jul 29th 2007
6. Wake up folks. This is a FOR PROFIT war.
Why would you pull out ,when you are making tons of money? No one in this admistration Cares about anything but the Money!
Randum at 7:32AM on Aug 1st 2007