You Think?
NYT: US plans to be there through ‘09. No kidding.
Remember all the talk about Bush’s lack of a plan if the surge failed? What they meant, of course, was failure to to give Congress a Plan B, rapid exit, to prefer. Well, surge isn’t failing, though U.S. political will might. Congress is still agitating for a Plan B. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is doing its job. Planning for the next step.
In September, when Petraeus shows up to discuss progress in counterinsurgency ops, the counter argument already being aired is that the United States can’t go past March ‘08. Strung-out troops can’t hack it. Here is are the beginnings of a response to that:
The classified plan, which represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador, calls for restoring security in local areas, including Baghdad, by the summer of 2008. “Sustainable security” is to be established on a nationwide basis by the summer of 2009, according to American officials familiar with the document.
The detailed document, known as the Joint Campaign Plan, is an elaboration of the new strategy President Bush signaled in January when he decided to send five additional American combat brigades and other units to Iraq. That signaled a shift from the previous strategy, which emphasized transferring to Iraqis the responsibility for safeguarding their security.
That new approach put a premium on protecting the Iraqi population in Baghdad, on the theory that improved security would provide Iraqi political leaders with the breathing space they needed to try political reconciliation.
The latest plan, which covers a two-year period, does not explicitly address troop levels or withdrawal schedules. It anticipates a decline in American forces as the “surge” in troops runs its course later this year or in early 2008. But it nonetheless assumes continued American involvement to train soldiers, act as partners with Iraqi forces and fight terrorist groups in Iraq, American officials said.
The rest of it is mainly a discussion of the goals and methods of the current counterinsurgency operation, which has been poorly reported in the press. I’m sorry, I meant, abysmally.
A couple of notes re facts/interpretation:
The previous plan, developed by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., who served as General Petraeus’s predecessor before being appointed as chief of staff of the Army, was aimed at prompting the Iraqis to take more responsibility for security by reducing American forces.
That approach faltered when the Iraqi security forces showed themselves unprepared to carry out their expanded duties, and sectarian killings soared.
Actually, sectarian killings soared because the Sunni insurgents blew up a Shiite shrine in Samarra for exactly that purpose. Meanwhile:
A core assumption of the plan is that American troops cannot impose a military solution, but that the United States can use force to create the conditions in which political reconciliation is possible.
About time someone got that right. However:
Like the Baker-Hamilton commission, which issued its report last year, the team believed that political, military and economic efforts were needed, including diplomatic discussions with Iran, officials said. There were different views about how aggressive to be in pressing for the removal of overtly sectarian officials, and several officials said that theme was toned down somewhat in the final plan.
NYT neglects to mention that the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, quite unlike the more practical and significantly more aggressive surge plan, was at best an exercise in wishful thinking that envisioned resolving our troubles in Iraq by pleading with the then-ascendant Iranians, stroking the Arabs on Palestine, as if that actually had anything to do with Iraq, and a “responsible transition” that pulled Americans out of combat and pushed more resources into training Iraqis … neither fish nor fowl in the fight vs. run debate, but practically speaking, all fowl. The inclusion of some common elements of Baker-Hamilton as conditions change on the ground, elements the ISG did not necessarily originate, are no endorsement of it.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 11:56 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2007
28 Responses to “You Think?”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
July 24th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I’ve always assumed one of the main objectives of the war in Iraq was to give us a large, permanent base in a region where we are apt to need our troops most. After all, we have permanent bases in Germany, Japan and Korea, where we are far less likely to need them.
July 24th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
And the surge wasn’t wishful thinking?
July 24th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Depends on what you’re wishing for, al-Phie, and we already know what your heart’s desire is.
July 24th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Thanks for this right-on post!
I checked around some of the other blogs, and there’s a lefty love fest going on over at Matt Yglesias’ blog:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/the_best_laid_plans.php
I left some comments there, after quoting your argument:
“Time to get out and read around, folks. The surge can work, as Long as Reid & Co. keep batting .000%.”
July 24th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Jefrfy.
My wish is that we only deploy the U.S. military where and when it can do some actual good.
July 24th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Where might that be, and why?
July 24th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Bush’s dady’s war worked out pretty good, Jeffy.
Too bad Bush had to try to prove he was just as good as his daddy.
He isn’t
Not by a long shot.
July 24th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Is there a location in that bit of port-side flatus?
July 24th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
If you don’t know where George H. W. Bush’s war was fought, Jeffy, what are doing posting here?
July 24th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
You want our troops back into Saudi? You do realize the Saudis don’t want them there, don’t you, and that their presence was one of Osama’s grievances. Are you advocating an invasion of SA now?
July 24th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Times change, Jeffy.
What was a good idea 16 years ago isn’t necessarily a good idea now.
War is a tricky business.
Winners like Bush’s daddy are extremely rare.
July 24th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
THE ALPHTARD™ is surely on a roll of stupidity today. He has never been in stupider form. If THE ALPHTARD™ keeps it up, He may become the stupidest person of all!
July 24th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Are you trying to say our current war is going better than the Gulf War, Real_Jeffy?
July 24th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Winners like Bush’s daddy are extremely rare.
Keep this is mind, people. This statement may just come back and haunt, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over…well you get the idea.
July 24th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
I’m asking where you want to “redeploy” 150,000 soldiers, al-Phie, where they “can do some actual good.” I see now that your idea is to insert them into Saudi Arabia, where they are not desired. That’s generally known as an “invasion.” Maybe you’ll tell us all what these troops will be doing there that will be so wonderful.
July 24th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
I think the current U.S. military should be scrapped and the $650,000,000,000 a year it costs should be returned to the taxpayers or spent on something that actually does some good, Jeffy.
In the case of the $150,000,000,000 a year we’re currently blowing on the Iraq fiasco, I’d say we’d do far more good there by handing the cash over to the people of Iraq, $6000 checks to each citizen, tripling their annual income.
July 24th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
‘Are you trying to say our current war is going better than the Gulf War, Real_Jeffy?’
I thought he was pretty clear. He’s said you’ve never been in stupider form than today. Where I might dispute that - you’ve been at least as stupid or more so in the past - the meaning was clear.
July 24th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
I think the current U.S. military should be scrapped…
So did Hitler. Good company you keep.
July 24th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Woah, PA.
Hitler breathed air, too!
Aaaah, were all as bad as him.
Quick, hold your breath!
July 24th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
al-fie, your attempt at humor was sophomoric. Maybe one of these days you can graduate from humor to sarcasm, if you learn humor first.
July 24th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
So the soldiers are going to bypass Saudi Arabia altogether, despite your praise for Bush I’s approach to war? Pardon me, al-Phie, but I think you were dissembling in your “redeployment” post.
Are you saying that we need to abandon Afghanistan, too? Do you realize the consequences of this? The return of the Taliban, the return of Osama, the return of AQ’s base there….and you have the gall to object when we suggest that you’re running interference for the enemy?
July 24th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Disband, not redeploy, Jeffy.
Close the circus down.
Osama and the Taliban have a safe, comfy base inside nuclear-armed Pakistan, now.
We’re blowing all that money just to keep them out of their vacation home.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:34 am
Yes, Bush I’s war went so well that it took up men and resources for 13 years, not to mention spawned the largest scam in history (remember the Food for Graft and Corruption plan of the U.N.?), until we finally went in and finished it. Bush I’s “war” was a battle, not a war, and those with two brain cells to rub together knew it at the time.
Hell, if we’re going to save money by disbanding the military, why not go all the way and disband every police department. Just think of the savings! We don’t have any real cause to expect the government to protect individuals or the nation from criminals either at home or abroad. Who knew the ant was a libertarian anarchist?!
July 25th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Yeah, al-Phie, I had surmised that your redeployment idea was a phony one. You’ve always been a member of the Surrender Caucus, first and foremost, so to see you advocating that America not only put its fists down but bare its throat to its Islamist enemies is hardly a surprise. The Left has always been particularly eager in its quest for an America-hating boot to lick; that it’s a gritty sandal thee days doesn’t really change much, does it?
July 25th, 2007 at 11:49 am
“Are you trying to say our current war is going better than the Gulf War”
Same old war. We’ve made quite a bit of progress in 17 years.
Ask Saddam Hussein how his side is doing.
July 25th, 2007 at 11:55 am
There are still plenty of enemies left to deal with, though.
Iran, Syria, the Paleswinians for sure need to be made to go away. Probably, destroying Khaddafi’s government in Libya, and crushing the commies in Cuba would be a good idea.
We’ll probably be fighting for many years.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
A must see…8 minutes long, but well worth it…Oh and turn up the sound
‘Old Blood and Guts’ Reappears in a New YouTube Role
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUX6wV1lBQ
via
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290718,00.html
July 25th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
OH OH!
Theo Spark informed me, the video is old news…Damn malaria..:).