Thursday, January 11, 2007
The Bush Plan for Iraq
President Bush's long awaited plan for Iraq was followed on television by several, mostly critical remarks by political leaders, political analysts and military experts. The plan is essentially to send about 21,000 additional troops into Iraq, 17,000 of them to be used in Baghdad to establish firm control over the city in conjunction with Iraqi troops and police. Another part of the plan is to spend additional money to help restore basic services and increase the availability of jobs. All of this sounds good, and it may work out better than the critics believe. But then so many plans have sounded good.
The criticisms fall under several headings.
1) Several commentators criticized the Bush plan as essentially a minor tactical adjustment. The additional troops are too few, too late. His new strategy is not a major change. The biggest difference is that the Iraqis are supposed to take the lead. Something they have not shown themselves capable of previously.
2) General Odom and Jim Webb, the new senator from Virginia said in their comments that what was needed was a fundamental change of strategy. Specifically this means that more pages should have been taken from the Baker report. They believe we should promote a regional solution. The Persians, Saudis, Turks, Syrians, and the Gulf States need to be brought together in a common undertaking to develop and secure Iraq. There was nothing about the need for regional involvement in the speech. Instead, there were the usual negative statements about Iran playing a part in the terrorism. The fact that because of geography, history, and religious affiliation Iran has to be a part of the solution has simply never been addressed by this administration. The only alternative to taking it seriously would be for us to permanently station American troops on the Iranian border.
3) There is a persistent failure to understand the enemy we face. It is not that we face a few thousand rebels and terrorists living amongst an otherwise passive population. There are millions of people against us. And every Iraqi we kill increases the number. In addition to this general struggle against the foreigner that is managed by outside terrorists as well as Iraqi nationalist (Baath), Sunni, Shi'a and Turkoman militias, there are the struggles of the sects and their militias against one another and against the Kurds and Turkoman. And within each of these groups, there are power struggles that often lead to violent deaths. The most notable militias are the Mahdi army of the Shi'a leader Moqtada al-Sadr and the peshmerga of the Kurdish enclave (intent on defending their heartland and extending it in the Mosul and Kirkuk areas). Some believe the Mahdi army is as large as the national army.
4) We are expecting the government forces to help us destroy the Shi'a militias in Baghdad. These are the same militias that have penetrated the army and police forces and are strongly supported by the Interior ministry. Apparently Maliki recognizes that he cannot effectively attack his political allies, so, as I read, he is bringing in units of the Kurdish peshmerga to help the Americans. The commentator that made this report said many doubted that the Peshmerga fighters would show up, and if they did, would risk their lives. We can well ask why they would help secure Baghdad. The peshmerga were formed to defend Kurdistan and extend its borders. They know that a peaceful, united Iraq would in the end endanger their dream. So what is in it for them? 98% of Kurds say in polls that they want a separate state. The American government has just never faced the reality of what it is our Kurdish "allies" really stand for. There are no doubt many enlightened, westernized Kurds that want to see a peaceful, united Iraq emerge from the chaos. The President is, after all, a Kurd. Yet this is clearly not the view of the bulk of the Kurdish population who feel they have never had it so good. They have already gone their own way.
One of the most cogent comments made by an after-talk panelist (Odem or Webb) was that there would not be stability until American troops leave. He was emphasizing the point that the war has to a considerable extent been from the beginning a struggle against what is perceived as an occupying power. The longer we stay and the more Iraqis we kill, intentionally or not, the more this will remain a critical factor. Many Iraqis have believed from the beginning that we were there to stay, that talk of ever leaving was window dressing. Any more troops will simply reinforce this view in the minds of many, including many Shi'a. Of course, we could probably bring peace to Iraq with 400,000 troops. We would then be an occupying power and the decisions would all be ours. We would not have to negotiate whether or not we attack the militias.
One interpretation of Bush's plan is that it was an attempt to counter what Washington knew that the Maliki regime wanted. Its leaders had opposed more American troops in Baghdad. Instead, they had wanted the Americans to move their troops to the outskirts so that the Iraqi police and army would have a freer hand in putting down the violence (which appeared to mean in attacking Sunnis and not Shi'as). The American plan to have our soldiers work directly with the Iraqis is not at all what they wanted. Bush said that the Iraqis would be taking a leading role in securing Baghdad, but these commentators are saying that this is exactly not what Bush wants.
One last thought of the commentators was that the Bush strategy is actually designed as a means of opening the door for an exit from Iraq. They argued that his subtext throughout his talk was that it is now all up to the Iraqis. They can make it work. But if they cannot, then there will be failure and it will be on them. Maybe so, but whatever we say, the world will see Americans leaving a still chaotic Iraq as our failure and the disastrous consequences of failure that the Bush people keep talking about would not be avoided. I cannot imagine that the administration really has a fall-back strategy of this kind. But what is their Plan B?
The criticisms fall under several headings.
1) Several commentators criticized the Bush plan as essentially a minor tactical adjustment. The additional troops are too few, too late. His new strategy is not a major change. The biggest difference is that the Iraqis are supposed to take the lead. Something they have not shown themselves capable of previously.
2) General Odom and Jim Webb, the new senator from Virginia said in their comments that what was needed was a fundamental change of strategy. Specifically this means that more pages should have been taken from the Baker report. They believe we should promote a regional solution. The Persians, Saudis, Turks, Syrians, and the Gulf States need to be brought together in a common undertaking to develop and secure Iraq. There was nothing about the need for regional involvement in the speech. Instead, there were the usual negative statements about Iran playing a part in the terrorism. The fact that because of geography, history, and religious affiliation Iran has to be a part of the solution has simply never been addressed by this administration. The only alternative to taking it seriously would be for us to permanently station American troops on the Iranian border.
3) There is a persistent failure to understand the enemy we face. It is not that we face a few thousand rebels and terrorists living amongst an otherwise passive population. There are millions of people against us. And every Iraqi we kill increases the number. In addition to this general struggle against the foreigner that is managed by outside terrorists as well as Iraqi nationalist (Baath), Sunni, Shi'a and Turkoman militias, there are the struggles of the sects and their militias against one another and against the Kurds and Turkoman. And within each of these groups, there are power struggles that often lead to violent deaths. The most notable militias are the Mahdi army of the Shi'a leader Moqtada al-Sadr and the peshmerga of the Kurdish enclave (intent on defending their heartland and extending it in the Mosul and Kirkuk areas). Some believe the Mahdi army is as large as the national army.
4) We are expecting the government forces to help us destroy the Shi'a militias in Baghdad. These are the same militias that have penetrated the army and police forces and are strongly supported by the Interior ministry. Apparently Maliki recognizes that he cannot effectively attack his political allies, so, as I read, he is bringing in units of the Kurdish peshmerga to help the Americans. The commentator that made this report said many doubted that the Peshmerga fighters would show up, and if they did, would risk their lives. We can well ask why they would help secure Baghdad. The peshmerga were formed to defend Kurdistan and extend its borders. They know that a peaceful, united Iraq would in the end endanger their dream. So what is in it for them? 98% of Kurds say in polls that they want a separate state. The American government has just never faced the reality of what it is our Kurdish "allies" really stand for. There are no doubt many enlightened, westernized Kurds that want to see a peaceful, united Iraq emerge from the chaos. The President is, after all, a Kurd. Yet this is clearly not the view of the bulk of the Kurdish population who feel they have never had it so good. They have already gone their own way.
One of the most cogent comments made by an after-talk panelist (Odem or Webb) was that there would not be stability until American troops leave. He was emphasizing the point that the war has to a considerable extent been from the beginning a struggle against what is perceived as an occupying power. The longer we stay and the more Iraqis we kill, intentionally or not, the more this will remain a critical factor. Many Iraqis have believed from the beginning that we were there to stay, that talk of ever leaving was window dressing. Any more troops will simply reinforce this view in the minds of many, including many Shi'a. Of course, we could probably bring peace to Iraq with 400,000 troops. We would then be an occupying power and the decisions would all be ours. We would not have to negotiate whether or not we attack the militias.
One interpretation of Bush's plan is that it was an attempt to counter what Washington knew that the Maliki regime wanted. Its leaders had opposed more American troops in Baghdad. Instead, they had wanted the Americans to move their troops to the outskirts so that the Iraqi police and army would have a freer hand in putting down the violence (which appeared to mean in attacking Sunnis and not Shi'as). The American plan to have our soldiers work directly with the Iraqis is not at all what they wanted. Bush said that the Iraqis would be taking a leading role in securing Baghdad, but these commentators are saying that this is exactly not what Bush wants.
One last thought of the commentators was that the Bush strategy is actually designed as a means of opening the door for an exit from Iraq. They argued that his subtext throughout his talk was that it is now all up to the Iraqis. They can make it work. But if they cannot, then there will be failure and it will be on them. Maybe so, but whatever we say, the world will see Americans leaving a still chaotic Iraq as our failure and the disastrous consequences of failure that the Bush people keep talking about would not be avoided. I cannot imagine that the administration really has a fall-back strategy of this kind. But what is their Plan B?
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
