A Plethora of Plans

By Meteor Blades

With the "bipartisan" Baker Commission trolling for a solution to the Iraqmire, the White House running a separate review of the situation, and the Pentagon trying to figure out what to do next, one cannot help but wonder whether the main thrust of current American policy in Iraq is launching as many lead balloons as possible before the 110th Congress is sworn in.

Thomas Ricks's piece in today's Washington Post discussing the Pentagon's Iraq policy review provides an amazing read, if you can stop laughing through your tears. There's enough fodder there to get Ricks started on the sequel to Fiasco.

The Pentagon apparently is secretly working on three possible approaches in Iraq, which Ricks says insiders have labeled Go Big, Go Long, Go Home. Short for send more troops, reduce troop levels but stay longer, or withdraw.

Seems as how they've already made up their minds:

The group has devised a hybrid plan that combines part of the first option with the second one -- "Go Long" -- and calls for cutting the U.S. combat presence in favor of a long-term expansion of the training and advisory efforts. Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said.

The purpose of the temporary but notable increase, they said, would be twofold: To do as much as possible to curtail sectarian violence, and also to signal to the Iraqi government and public that the shift to a "Go Long" option that aims to eventually cut the U.S. presence is not a disguised form of withdrawal.

Even so, there is concern that such a radical shift in the U.S. posture in Iraq could further damage the standing of its government, which U.S. officials worry is already shaky. Under the hybrid plan, the short increase in U.S. troop levels would be followed by a long-term plan to radically cut the presence, perhaps to 60,000 troops.

Uh-huh. And how long would these troops remain under what Ricks says one Defense official is calling "Go Big but Short While Transitioning to Go Long"?

Planners envision taking five to 10 more years to create a stable and competent Iraqi army. Because it wouldn't lead to a swift exit, some Democrats could criticize this option as a disguised version of "staying the course."[My emphasis].

Not very well disguised. And guaranteed to do more of what all but the most rigid ideologues or ignoramuses now understand have been key results of U.S. Iraq policy - generating more terrorists and weakening national (and international) security.

Does anybody remember that a year ago this month, the White House released its National Strategy for Victory in Iraq? Key elements of that plan, which the Administration placed in an Appendix and labeled "The Eight Pillars," were: Defeat the Terrorists and Neutralize the Insurgency; Transition Iraq to Security Self-Reliance; Help Iraqis Forge a National Compact for Democratic Government; Help Iraq Build Government Capacity and Provide Essential Services; Help Iraq Strengthen Its Economy; Help Iraq Strengthen the Rule of Law and Promote Civil Rights; Increase International Support for Iraq; Strengthen Public Understanding of Coalition Efforts and Public Isolation of the Insurgents.

Every one of those pillars has been a colossal failure, including what the Pentagon is apparently getting ready to propose - more training of Iraqi troops and police. Five to 10 more years' worth of teaching fighting skills to men with sectarian loyalties. Ye gods. How many of us do they expect to take this seriously?

Comments

[freepatriot]

at 3 dead soldiers a day, how many soldiers' lives are the bushite warmongers willing to spend ???

and for what

those are the questions that destroy george's little bubble of victory

[sti1es]

i'm going to conscientiously stop paying taxes... i mean, how much is all this crap going to cost?

[Jodi]

I think that the Bush Administration are hoping the Democrats take charge, and ultimately blame.

[irene]

I just had a little reading mishap. I misread "bipartisan" Baker Commission as bipolar Baker Commission. Did I inadvertantly stumble on the truth?

[jwp]

for the first time, I agree with Jodi

The Dems will hold hearings, but they will not cut off funds. So no one in Congress will stop Bush.

There is one group that could do it. Retired military leaders, led by Colin Powell. Demand that we leave. That would make Repubs in Congress scared, and might lead to some action.

The interesting play is Charlie Rangel and the draft. Many Dems fear this angle (what do the heirs of Clinton NOT fear?), and for sure it will never become law, but I am not certain that it isn't a good publicity stunt. For some reason, I like it. But maybe the polls would show that it does not convince people. Has anyone seen anything relevant?

[ab initio]

The politics of Iraq is going to be "who lost Iraq". Bush is not going to withdraw no matter if the sun rises in the west. He is not going to take the responsibility for invading and losing. The Dems are not going to defund lest they be attacked for not supporting the troops. The best they can do is shed light on the decision making to war, the war profiteering and real situation on the ground. So who is going to have the courage to get the troops out of the middle of the Iraqi anarchy. Most likely the next Presidential candidate who runs on a campaign of getting out and then gets elected.

In the next 2 years we will have the kabuki between Bush and the congressional Dems while every month 50-100 American soldiers and thousands of Iraqis will shed blood.

[Jodi]

:( ...

[jwp]

Ab initio,

You are correct.

1968-74 all over again, except Nixon was a better President

[freepatriot]

I think most of the people here misunderestimate the will of the American people

and the fact that politicians live in fear of the mob

repuglican self interest will prevail

I doubt that the repuglicans are gonna stay with george AFTER they've gone over the cliff

repuglicans are having a Wile E Coyote moment right now

you know, after Wile E has ventured off the cliff but before he starts to fall ???

look for all sorts of repuglican congresscritters to start holding up little signs with humorous phrases on them

then the drop begins

and the repuglicans are living in fear of that plunge

the most ferocious organisim on this planet is 300,000,000 pissed off Americans

and we ain't gonna be pissed at any Iraqis

[Paul Lyon]

``The Dems are not going to defund lest they be attacked for not supporting the troops.''

This is not a new phenomena. In a speech---given in the House in Jan, 1848---that in general condemned the Mexican war, then Congressman Abraham Lincoln nevertheless insisted that ``I voted for the supplies''. Ten years later in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, he repeated that point in response to criticism by Douglas of his stance against the Mexican war. One might call the position in which Lincoln, and many congress critters since then, have found themselves over their opposition to a war, the ``jingoism trap''.