September 9, 2007
A Plan For Iraq*
It's September, let the spin begin!
The time has finally arrived for Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker to give their impartial the White House's assessment to Congress on the effect of Bush's troop "surge" in Iraq. But what they have to say on Capitol Hill will be irrelevant because Republicans and Democrats will just highlight whatever testimony that supports their respective argument: either the surge is working and "progress" is being made (Republicans) or the surge isn't working and it's time to pull out (Democrats). It'll be a battle of the spin...and Petraeus
Among the "success" stories that Petraeus, Crocker, the White House and Republicans will undoubtedly point to will be Anbar province. But Anbar had nothing to do with the surge. A deal was made with the Sunnis - "sometimes resulting in the release of fighters detained for attacking (American) forces" - in which they would stop firing on Americans and instead go after al-Qaeda. That's why the violence has dropped in the area, not because of the extra troops.
But let me see if I have this straight. We invaded Iraq to change the Sunni regime, but now we're empowering them, strengthening them and giving them weapons that could one day be turned on our soldiers (yup, sounds like more Bush logic to me!).
Be that as it may. This contradicts Bush's assertion that there was a 9/11 connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Because if there was a connection, why are Hussein's Sunnis attacking al-Qaeda (I love using logic to make Republicans look foolish. It's so easy!)?
The White House and their brainwashed base will also point to fewer attacks and fewer American casualties as proof that the surge "is working." But all that proved is that the White House/GOP propaganda machine did it's job because the so called "liberal" media bought it (but not the public).
It's reprehensible to use casualty counts to prove an argument, one way or another. However, after more then four years - four years! - of nothing but death, destruction and chaos, a summer of fewer attacks and casualties is not progress! Besides, Iraqi casualties are up. And even if American casualties did fall, which they haven't, they'd be what they were this time last year. How is that "progress?" It would be like a D student getting F's for eight months, then getting a D on a test and telling his parents, "I'm making progress!"
Must be progress in the bizarro Republican world.
(Much of the Republican spin will differentiate American casualties - those from hostile fire and those from non-hostile fire. Leave it to the GOP to spin American deaths and bring this "debate" down to such a despicable level.)
If we're making so much "progress," why haven't check points been dismantled? Why do our soldiers and vehicles still need so much protective armor - in fact "better armor" then last year? Why do soldiers, I'd assume, still have the same fear going out on patrol as they did last year? And why is the Green Zone still protected by the same, if not more, fortifications then it was last year (I love using logic to make Republicans look foolish. It's so easy!)?
So as I pointed out here, legitimate progress will only be made when we don't have to be told it's happening because results on the ground will speak for themselves. In fact, the more Petraeus, Crocker, Bush and the Republicans use the word the less true it is. Because if it was true, they wouldn't have to spin and work so hard to prove it.
Therefore, the next couple of weeks won't be about the war at all. It won't be about changing policy, tactics and strategy and it certainly won't be about the troops who will have to live and die with the consequences. It'll only be about the spin.
Is this any way to debate a disastrous war? Of course not. But since when did Washington ever have an honest debate about, well, anything? Spin, putting the Democrats on the defensive and keeping their cult-like base riled up is all that matters to Republicans (and we wonder why Iraq and everything else this administration touches is a disaster). And once the spin quiets down and the MSM moves onto another story, nothing will change. Iraq will still be a colossal disaster, our troops will still be stuck in the middle of it and the afraid-of-their-own-shadow Democrats will hand Bush the additional
If the spin were to ever stop, it's not debatable: for all intents and purposes, the surge did not work, the violence did not drop, there is no progress, there never was any progress and never will be progress as long as we "stay the course" with nothing but spin.
Where we are
As I explained in 2005, we can't leave and we can't stay. And since nothing has changed, it's still true.
We can't pull out because that would make the (underreported) humanitarian crisis even worse. And we'd eventually have to go back in on humanitarian grounds alone.
Also, even if Bush ordered all the troops out tomorrow, it would take 10-14 months to bring them home. And what about all our weaponry: the tanks, planes, helicopters etc. (see the 2005 post)? If we took everything as we left, the Iraqi (cough, cough) army wouldn't have much of anything to defend themsleves with except unarmored pick-up trucks.
And we couldn't just give everything to the "good" Iraqis because, assuming we knew who the "good" Iraqis were, very powerful weapons would wind up in the hands of the "bad" Iraqis, al-Qaeda and maybe even Iran anyway. Besides, if we can't secure the country with our firepower, how would the Iraqis do it all by themselves?
Also, we wouldn't hand over hundreds of billions of dollars of weaponry for nothing...to radical Islamic fundamentalists...in the middle of their civil war. So there's no Marshall Plan in Iraq's future.
This is the pickle we're in. But wait, it gets worse. From AP last week:
Iraq's security forces will be unable to take control of the country in the next 18 months, and Baghdad's national police force is so rife with corruption it should be scrapped entirely, according to a new independent assessment.(With all this "progress" we're making, should we put Bush's bust on Mt. Rushmore now or wait until he leaves office?)
So we can't leave militarily. And can we leave politically either.
Tom Friedman
It's September, let the spin begin!
The time has finally arrived for Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker to give
Among the "success" stories that Petraeus, Crocker, the White House and Republicans will undoubtedly point to will be Anbar province. But Anbar had nothing to do with the surge. A deal was made with the Sunnis - "sometimes resulting in the release of fighters detained for attacking (American) forces" - in which they would stop firing on Americans and instead go after al-Qaeda. That's why the violence has dropped in the area, not because of the extra troops.
But let me see if I have this straight. We invaded Iraq to change the Sunni regime, but now we're empowering them, strengthening them and giving them weapons that could one day be turned on our soldiers (yup, sounds like more Bush logic to me!).
Be that as it may. This contradicts Bush's assertion that there was a 9/11 connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Because if there was a connection, why are Hussein's Sunnis attacking al-Qaeda (I love using logic to make Republicans look foolish. It's so easy!)?
The White House and their brainwashed base will also point to fewer attacks and fewer American casualties as proof that the surge "is working." But all that proved is that the White House/GOP propaganda machine did it's job because the so called "liberal" media bought it (but not the public).
It's reprehensible to use casualty counts to prove an argument, one way or another. However, after more then four years - four years! - of nothing but death, destruction and chaos, a summer of fewer attacks and casualties is not progress! Besides, Iraqi casualties are up. And even if American casualties did fall, which they haven't, they'd be what they were this time last year. How is that "progress?" It would be like a D student getting F's for eight months, then getting a D on a test and telling his parents, "I'm making progress!"
Must be progress in the bizarro Republican world.
(Much of the Republican spin will differentiate American casualties - those from hostile fire and those from non-hostile fire. Leave it to the GOP to spin American deaths and bring this "debate" down to such a despicable level.)
If we're making so much "progress," why haven't check points been dismantled? Why do our soldiers and vehicles still need so much protective armor - in fact "better armor" then last year? Why do soldiers, I'd assume, still have the same fear going out on patrol as they did last year? And why is the Green Zone still protected by the same, if not more, fortifications then it was last year (I love using logic to make Republicans look foolish. It's so easy!)?
So as I pointed out here, legitimate progress will only be made when we don't have to be told it's happening because results on the ground will speak for themselves. In fact, the more Petraeus, Crocker, Bush and the Republicans use the word the less true it is. Because if it was true, they wouldn't have to spin and work so hard to prove it.
Therefore, the next couple of weeks won't be about the war at all. It won't be about changing policy, tactics and strategy and it certainly won't be about the troops who will have to live and die with the consequences. It'll only be about the spin.
Is this any way to debate a disastrous war? Of course not. But since when did Washington ever have an honest debate about, well, anything? Spin, putting the Democrats on the defensive and keeping their cult-like base riled up is all that matters to Republicans (and we wonder why Iraq and everything else this administration touches is a disaster). And once the spin quiets down and the MSM moves onto another story, nothing will change. Iraq will still be a colossal disaster, our troops will still be stuck in the middle of it and the afraid-of-their-own-shadow Democrats will hand Bush the additional
If the spin were to ever stop, it's not debatable: for all intents and purposes, the surge did not work, the violence did not drop, there is no progress, there never was any progress and never will be progress as long as we "stay the course" with nothing but spin.
Where we are
As I explained in 2005, we can't leave and we can't stay. And since nothing has changed, it's still true.
We can't pull out because that would make the (underreported) humanitarian crisis even worse. And we'd eventually have to go back in on humanitarian grounds alone.
Also, even if Bush ordered all the troops out tomorrow, it would take 10-14 months to bring them home. And what about all our weaponry: the tanks, planes, helicopters etc. (see the 2005 post)? If we took everything as we left, the Iraqi (cough, cough) army wouldn't have much of anything to defend themsleves with except unarmored pick-up trucks.
And we couldn't just give everything to the "good" Iraqis because, assuming we knew who the "good" Iraqis were, very powerful weapons would wind up in the hands of the "bad" Iraqis, al-Qaeda and maybe even Iran anyway. Besides, if we can't secure the country with our firepower, how would the Iraqis do it all by themselves?
Also, we wouldn't hand over hundreds of billions of dollars of weaponry for nothing...to radical Islamic fundamentalists...in the middle of their civil war. So there's no Marshall Plan in Iraq's future.
This is the pickle we're in. But wait, it gets worse. From AP last week:
Iraq's security forces will be unable to take control of the country in the next 18 months, and Baghdad's national police force is so rife with corruption it should be scrapped entirely, according to a new independent assessment.(With all this "progress" we're making, should we put Bush's bust on Mt. Rushmore now or wait until he leaves office?)
So we can't leave militarily. And can we leave politically either.
Tom Friedman, Feb. 2, 2007:
The Sunnis, who started this whole murderous cycle, participate in the government, negotiate with us and also indulge the suicide bombers and the insurgents. The Shiites collaborate with us, run their own retaliatory death squads and dabble with Iran. The Saudis tell us we can't leave, but their mosques and charities funnel Sunni suicide bombers to Iraq and dollars to insurgents. Iran pushes its Iraqi Shiite allies to grab more power, while helping others kill U.S. troops. Ditto Syria.And it's gotten worse:
The Washington Post, Aug. 25, 2007:
Escalating a political crisis that has paralyzed the Iraqi government, three secular cabinet members will formally resign Saturday, according to a senior member of the group.But even if the Iraqi (cough, cough) "government" was intact (and didn't go on vacation), would things be any different? Keep in mind, these are Iraqis. They wouldn't know know a city council meeting if it fell on them. Their idea of "rule of law" and "due process" is grabbing someone on a street corner and cutting throat on the spot.
Stability? Democracy? Freedom? Whose brilliant idea was this?
After generations of vindictive and vengeful atrocities at the hand of an authoritarian regime, Iraqis have become desensitized and are just as bloodthirsty as Saddam Hussein was (it's similar to an abused child that grows up to be an abuser himself). Revenge, violence and savagery is normalcy to Iraqis. So when you combine the deep sectarian divisions that go back centuries with all that power and oil up for grabs, we shouldn't be surprised that there's blood and bodies in the streets (and neither should Dick Cheney).With so much chaos and so many militia groups with so many agendas, you need a scorecard to figure out which side everyone's on...on any given day. Because a year ago the Sunnis were our enemy and Prime Minister Maliki had our support. Now the Sunnis are our allie and Maliki is being pushed aside.
And to think a "surge" was going send everyone to their respective corner. Whose brilliant idea was this?
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that all this chaos and violence hasn't gotten a single Iraqi anywhere, except to his or her grave. And since no militia group will ever be able to secure Iraq in the form that they want it, this is more about their vindictive history and bloody instincts then anything else. Therefore, if becoming a martyr is what they're fighting for, then Iraq is even a bigger disaster then we think because just try and reason with that type of mentality (oh my God, we have, the Republican Party).
Regardless of their intentions, the chaos and violence is to their benefit because between one and two million Iraqis have left the country (over 25% since the "surge" began). And this has allowed militia groups to take control of parts of Iraq one city at a time (it's similar to urban decay in the United States. As crime begins to rise in a neighborhood, residents and local business leave and gangs, guns and drugs move in. And it takes the exact opposite - shopping, offices, housing, the theater - to get them out.).
So as more and more Iraqis leave (or get killed) the more ground the militias will control.
This is another reason why we can't pull out entirely. Because if the militias and al-Qaeda controlled the country, and the oil, Iraq would become (not to mix metaphors) the petry dish/Grand Central Station/supermarket for terrorists all over the world. Then again, it's already happening.
Great going, Mr. President.
The plan
As much as the Bush administration and the GOP would like to spin Iraq away, that would just make things worse as the last four years have shown. So "staying the course" is not an option. And we can't stay, even if we wanted to because our military is at its breaking point. Unless a draft is implemented, we don't have enough troops to stay at these levels indefinitely.
So there are no good options and anyone who says they have a "plan for victory" or a plan to "stabilize Iraq" is either lying, spinning or a politician (most likely all three).
That's why a honest debate on Iraq begins with, well, being honest; followed quickly by being realistic and practical. And that means removing the "goal posts." Forget about purple fingers, forget about "benchmarks," forget about freedom, forget about democracy and forget about stopping the violence and stabilizing Iraq. None of that is happening, at least not any time soon.
The objectives over the next couple of years should be basic: interdiction, disruption, negotiation, nurturing, prevention and containment.
First, we start by announcing that over the next six to eight months we'll be bringing half our troops, half our armor and half our firepower home. Whatever Iraqi "government" there is should get the message.
Second, we would keep roughly 50,000 troops, special forces, State Department "nation builders" and support personnel in Baghdad and surrounding provinces to:
- Protect and defend the oil fields.
- Gather and act on intelligence to ensure that high tech weaponry and WMDs don't get into the wrong hands (any hands for that matter).
- Disrupt the militia groups, al-Qaeada and foreign terrorists from organizing to prevent Iraq from becoming the petry dish/Grand Central Station/supermarket for terrorists all over the world (since there's no one better at dividing countrymen and tearing alliances apart, this is something George Bush can actually do! Heck, he might as well send Karl Rove over to do the job.).
- Push, prop-up, cajole and mold the Iraqi government into some sort of unified governing body that can wield authority. And when it collapses, start all over again.
Despite my misgivings, skepticism and cynicism, despite the corruption and incompetence, despite the back-stabbing (figuratively and literally), despite Iraqis showing no signs of reconciliation, in government and out, and despite Iran's efforts to establish a Shiite-dominated Islamic theocracy in Baghdad, we don't have a choice. There will never be progress without a functioning government in place.
If there's a starting point, it's here.
- Bring diplomacy into the process by offering Iraq's neighbors a seat at the negotiating table (at this point just providing a table would be progress!).A persistent and assertive diplomatic effort must be part of any Iraq strategy (whodathunkit). Not that they're "Carter, Begin and Sadot," of course, but the Arab world is all we got.
Assuming it's even possible, only the Arab world can bring the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and the oil together. - Lower the tensions between Turkey and the Kurds. Because if war breaks out between them - due to the ongoing border skirmishes getting out of hand, the Kurds declaring independence or moving on the oil rich city of Kirkuk - it'll lead to a regional war that will make what's going on now look like a picnic.Over the last four years, you'd think Bush would have been relentless, shuttling back and forth between the United Nations, the Mid-East and Europe forcing diplomacy and negotiation (and as talks broke down, got back on Air Force One to do all over again. That's what presidents are supposed to do!). Given their history, you'd think he would have gotten in between Turkey and the Kurds immediately after Baghdad fell. You'd think he would made all this his State Department's top priority. You'd think so, wouldn't you? But neither he nor his Secretary's of State, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, has made a single trip in this regard (photo-ops don't count). Not one.
Since patrolling and knocking down doors would be limited under this plan, killing and capturing insurgents would also be limited; unless, of course, they could be taken out by simply dropping a bomb.
But at least this would result in a drastic drop of American casualties, making spin unnecessary.
Third, the other 30,000 troops would be redeployed to Iraq's borders to prevent the civil war from going any further. Remember, it's been Osama bin-Laden goal all along to topple the Saudi Royal family. And there's no better way to accomplish that then by spilling Iraq's civil war into Saudi Arabia. Therefore, troops must be strategically positioned to prevent that at all costs. The Kuwaiti and Jordanian borders must also be protected and the Iranian border defended to prevent weapons and terrorists from coming into Iraq (this could be problematic since our troops would pose an enticing target to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad).
Unfortunately, even if if this plan was implemented, the violence would obviously continue and probably get worse. And since the Iraqi (cough, cough) security forces have yet to show the slightest interest in "standing up so we can stand down," ever, it's not as if they can be counted on to pick up the slack in our absence. Therefore, this could ultimately lead to a refugee crises of epic proportion because more civilians would be forced to flee the country. And while Iraqis are leaving, militia groups would gain ground and power.
So this doesn't sound like much of a plan, does it? Of course not. But what are the alternatives? We can't leave, we can't stay and "staying the course" is insanity. Therefore, we must begin to withdraw, partially, and at the same time, put a lid on this thing before it's too late (assuming it's not already too late).
And maybe, just maybe, a couple of years down the road, there will indeed be real progress to build upon.
Conclusion: Amid all the violence, death, destruction, disease, chaos, fraud, corruption, refugees and tortured bodies that turn up every single day, it's obscene for Gen. Petraeus, Amb. Crocker, George Bush, his feckless administration and the Republican Party to spin this colossal disaster. It's disgraceful and an insult to ones intelligence (not to Republicans, of course, who don't have an intelligence to insult). How dare they even utter the words "progress," "successes," "gains" and "working." What nerve.
At the Bush/Republican rate of "progress," I'd hate to think of how many years, how many lives, how many limbs and how many hundreds of billions trillions of dollars it would take to bring peace and a legitimate, friendly, stable and democratic government to Iraq.
After more then four years of lying the country into this colossal disaster, ignoring this colossal disaster, spinning this colossal disaster and using this colossal disaster to blast Democrats, divide the country and use for partisan political gain, America should not only be embarrassed by what passes for "honest debate" in this county, but sickened by those responsible for it.
+/- show/hide this post
