Final Push To Baghdad

The British Guardian, maybe not the normal outlet for White House leaks, claims to have a sneak peek at Bush's last gasp strategy in Iraq.  Buried in the text is the news that democracy is on the back burner, with stability the priority:

US plans last big push in Iraq Strategy document calls for extra 20,000 troops, aid for Iraqi army and regional summit
President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration's internal deliberations.

Mr Bush's refusal to give ground, coming in the teeth of growing calls in the US and Britain for a radical rethink or a swift exit, is having a decisive impact on the policy review being conducted by the Iraq Study Group chaired by Bush family loyalist James Baker, the sources said.

Although the panel's work is not complete, its recommendations are expected to be built around a four-point "victory strategy" developed by Pentagon officials advising the group. The strategy, along with other related proposals, is being circulated in draft form and has been discussed in separate closed sessions with Mr Baker and the vice-president Dick Cheney, an Iraq war hawk.

Point one of the strategy calls for an increase rather than a decrease in overall US force levels inside Iraq, possibly by as many as 20,000 soldiers...

The reinforcements will be used to secure Baghdad, scene of the worst sectarian and insurgent violence, and enable redeployments of US, coalition and Iraqi forces elsewhere in the country.

Point two of the plan stresses the importance of regional cooperation to the successful rehabilitation of Iraq. This could involve the convening of an international conference of neighbouring countries or more direct diplomatic, financial and economic involvement of US allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

"The extent to which that [regional cooperation] will include talking to Iran and Syria is still up for debate," said Patrick Cronin, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. "Externally, US policy is focused on what is achievable. Some quarters believe Syria in some ways could be helpful. There are more doubts about Iran but Iran holds more cards. Some think it's worth a try."

...

Point three focuses on reviving the national reconciliation process between Shia, Sunni and other ethnic and religious parties. According to the sources, creating a credible political framework will be portrayed as crucial in persuading Iraqis and neighbouring countries alike that Iraq can become a fully functional state.

To the certain dismay of US neo-cons, initial post-invasion ideas about imposing fully-fledged western democratic standards will be set aside. And the report is expected to warn that de facto tripartite partition within a loose federal system, as advocated by Democratic senator Joe Biden and others would lead not to peaceful power-sharing but a large-scale humanitarian crisis.

Lastly, the sources said the study group recommendations will include a call for increased resources to be allocated by Congress to support additional troop deployments and fund the training and equipment of expanded Iraqi army and police forces. It will also stress the need to counter corruption, improve local government and curtail the power of religious courts.

What are the odds of success (and what is success - what, on the menu of stable, secular, unified, democratic Iraq is still a US goal?)

The "last push" strategy is also intended to give Mr Bush and the Republicans "political time and space" to recover from their election drubbing and prepare for the 2008 presidential campaign, the official said. "The Iraq Study Group buys time for the president to have one last go. If the Democrats are smart, they'll play along, and I think they will. But forget about bipartisanship. It's all about who's going to be in best shape to win the White House.

The official added: "Bush has said 'no' to withdrawal, so what else do you have? The Baker report will be a set of ideas, more realistic than in the past, that can be used as political tools. What they're going to say is: lower the goals, forget about the democracy crap, put more resources in, do it."

Comments

[Pofarmer]

It's all about who's going to be in best shape to win the White House.

That's a sad, sad statement.

[TexasToast]

Tom

You left out of the goals an Iraq receptive to a continuing US military presence.

What they're going to say is: lower the goals, forget about the democracy crap, put more resources in, do it.

This actually looks like the last, best hope - but its a tall order. Why should any arab trust us now?

[Sue]

Why should any arab trust us now?

I thought Iraqis were Persian. But you have a point. Why should they trust us? We leave when the going gets tough.

[TexasToast]

From
Battle of the Bulge (1965)

Col. Martin Hessler: Our column has made the farthest advance! We have outrun the other Panzers! The eyes of Germany are on us! The Fuhrer himself will decorate me. We have done it Conrad! We have done it!
Cpl. Conrad: Then I was wrong. We have won the war.
Col. Martin Hessler: No.
Cpl. Conrad: You mean we have lost?
Col. Martin Hessler: No.
Cpl. Conrad: I don't understand. If we have not won, and we have not lost, than what is happening?
Col. Martin Hessler: The best thing possible is happening - the war will go on.
Cpl. Conrad: For how long?
Col. Martin Hessler: Indefinitely. On, and on, and on!
Cpl. Conrad: But it must come to an end.
Col. Martin Hessler: You're a fool Conrad. Those of us who understood knew in 1941 that we could never win.
Cpl. Conrad: You mean Colonel for three years we have been fighting without any hope of victory?
Col. Martin Hessler: There are many kinds of victory. ....

Sue - The Iraqis are Arab (and both sunni and shia)- the Iranians are persian (and Shia).

[clarice]

I hope the Guardian is right.

[Charles Martin]

In other words, the Guardian is revealing thatg the paleocons were right all along and Bush is going along with them instead of the neocons.

Gee, I wonder who could have leaked that trial balloon?

[Pofarmer]

You're using movie quotes now TT?

geez.

Why should any arab have trusted us before?

Pat yourself on the back.

[Sue]

Sue - The Iraqis are Arab (and both sunni and shia)- the Iranians are persian (and Shia).

Well, I'll be damned. My point stands, though.

[Pete]

And the recommendations are ..
..DRUMROLL..
Move the goalposts, install your own handpicked bad-ass dictator, and declare "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" (just make sure you don't do it again on a battleship).

So lets look at the four points.

If 20,000 troops would have made a difference it would have happened a long time ago. These whack a mole strategies don't seem to work in the long term.

And I just can't see Bush and the mullahs sitting down and talking about Iraq (wouldn't the base and the Israelis have a fit?). With Shiites a majority in Iraq, Iran is definitely in the drivers seat. And those history buffs who have been citing WWII as a precedence for Iraq would have found far more similarities in the war between India and Pakistan which gave birth to the nation of Bangladesh in the early 1970s. A secular democratic nation liberating a largely Muslim nation and installing a democracy, only to have the democracy overthrown and the two nations diverging away from each other.

It is a little late to try to get the disfunctional groups back together in Iraq. The Kurds love their autonomy and are the only group there that could form lasting ties with us.

And the money spigot has already been flowing at full volume, and with our debt reaching record highs I don't know how much additional money we could afford to keep burning in Iraq. Does Iraqi pork taste any better?

[lurker]

Our federal deficit has been going down and expected to be halved by 2009 if the democrats don't do anything.

Hope they are engineers to create a moat around Baghdad as fast as possible to keep the Iranians and Syrians from entering Baghdad.

Hope they go after Sadr as soon as possible.

Riehl says that we now have command of Baghdad. Does it mean we have control of it? Or planning some major incursions to wipe out insurgents as soon as possible?

If and only if OBL and Zarahiwi had been caught by now.

[lurker]

Mission Accomplished was for that ship. I don't see a problem with it.

[AT]

"international conference"
"more direct diplomatic, financial and economic involvement"
"reviving the national reconciliation process"
"creating a credible political framework"

Does anyone else know what this stuff means?

[shaman ∞]

Sounds like 20,000 more dead and mutilated to me.

[Pete]

The federal deficit has not been going down, but is rather sharply up since Bush took office.

Plus with all the budget gimmicks, the real number to watch is the outsatnding federal debt
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Today it stands at $8,607,421,375,278.41
on Jan 19 2001 it was $5,727,776,738,304.64

That is a 50% INCREASE.

[Abu Al-Poopypants]

Clinton debt:
01/19/2001 $5,727,776,738,304.64
01/20/1993 $4,188,092,107,183.60
...without fighting the GWOT.

[sam]

Could we also have comparable GDP and net wealth figures please? It seems to me we are carrying lesser and lesser debt burden as we are becoming richer and richer.

[Charles Martin]

Could we also have comparable GDP and net wealth figures please? It seems to me we are carrying lesser and lesser debt burden as we are becoming richer and richer.

No. If you could, Pete would also end up pointing out that he's picking his start and end points, and what he chooses as a measure, um, creatively.

[Pete]

I was simply respond to the inaccuracy about the deficit. Under Clinton the debt rose 37% in 8 years. Under Bush it rose 50% in less than 6 years.

The deficit is increasing. And that too under someone who said that he was a fiscal conservative and who said that he wanted a smaller government.

[Terrye]

Pete:

The national debt and the deficit are not the same thing. The budget deficit has already been cut in half, which is what Bush said he wanted by the end of his term. This has been brought about by an increase in tax revenues.

And the Democrats just want to spend more money and while they might increase our taxes they will not pay the national debt.

Most of that socalled surplus was smoke and mirrors anyway, created by a dot com bubble that was all fluff. The recession was coming that summer of 2000. Over all the economy has done remarkabley well these last years.

I am old enough to remember the days of Carter and I can recall times when people wanted a job, any kind of job. Now people complain if they don't get a good dental plan.

Democrats are out there lying to people, acting that a vote for the Democrats will make everyone rich or something. It is just absurd.

[Terrye]

As for the actual subject at hand rather than Pete's fantasy growing deficit...

The idea that we might put security first in Iraq in the near future does not run counter to the idea of representative government. I never did think that their government would be like ours, the point is to create an atmosphere were freedom of thought and expression are possible. But the Iraqis need to create political parties and alliances that are not just about tribal allegiances and religion and most of all they need breathing room.

So I don't think this is backing off democracy at all. In fact it took many years to establish these kinds of governments following WW2. This will take time.

[boris]

Few understand the true relationship between economic growth and debt.

Compare the interest the government pays this year on the debt increase during Reagan's terms to the current fraction of the GDP that would not be there except for the of the economic growth during the same period.

It's pretty obvious that the increase in the size of the economy during those years has paid off handsomly.

For example suppose the economy grew by 30% during Reagan's terms. If the last year's GDP was 12 Trillion, then about 4 trillion of that can be credited to the Reagan expansion. Of course one can argue how much of that growth was the result of tax cuts and/or spending just as one can argue about how much of the debt increase was necessary or legitimate. Still the few hundred billion we pay in interest vs. several trillion in real income looks like a pretty good deal.

[Pete]

The deficit has been cut in half compared to what?

It has been cut in half compared to a phony made up number.

The average Bush deficit is not half of the average Clinton deficit.

I can't believe that you are arguing that deficits are good, spending is good, big govt is good.