As Newsweek columnist Michael Hirsh observes, there’s a strange disconnect between public debate about Iraq and the new ground strategy: Amid all the talk of a brief “surge” and narrow window of opportunity, Gen. David Petraeus’ counterinsurgency plan now under way calls for a long-term commitment of U.S. troops, at least for five years and possibly 10 years. It amounts almost to a complete do-over.
It’s clear there will be no troop withdrawal as long as Bush is president — no matter what Congress or the American people want. The question is, will Democrats end up supporting the Petraeus strategy — and are we getting an honest debate about our commitment in Iraq?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
50 Comments
Well the only way for the Bush plan to work is a complete “do-over” there was just to much went wrong the first time around. But the only way I see a win is to accept the reality that the country is ruled by the Shiite majority. If Bush had been willing to accept that, this would have been over sooner. And yes Iraq would be more a theocracy then a Democracy, but of course that is not what Bush was really after in the first place now was it? We could stay a hundred years and it would not change the ultimate outcome.
I am finding myself reluctantly agreeing with Brownback… Something I find hard to do but he now finally saying on a national level what I have been saying here for months. Split the county into three regions.
He is proposing 3 “states” within one Iraq and I was just proposing 3 different countries, but still, its at least something that makes since.
What is really so wrong with this plan? Its no worse than GW’s plan and as far as I can tell, it’s a whole lot better… I think it should be seriously considered.
Tony – the BIG problem: What do you do about Baghdad? Unfortunately, it is probably less disasterous that Bush’s ‘plan’ (sic)
We could Berlin it? ;-)
sadly … and let Bush. Rumsfield, Cheney, and the rest man “Checkpoint Charlie”
It could be the right track, perhaps a self governing, loose association based on the oil revenues. As there would be some parts of Iraq that do not have the oil. As such those without the natural resource unless they get a equal share would not be willing to split.
The biggest problem with the Bush doctrine is that it assume that every person in every country wants to be American. Believe it or not some actually do not want what we have. And would be willing to fight us to keep our believes out of their country.
Well said writerdog…
Bush&Co has this perception that everyone wants to be like him…
As someone who has studied history and the Islamic culture, not in great depth, but reasonable enough that i realize, these people are different and its their RIGHT as humans to have their own beliefs, their own country and their own lives.
Its NOT our right to invade and change that.
One country – three states! Theory sounds good, except I recall an event known as “the War of Northern Aggression”, in the South; or the “Civil War” elsewhere in the rest of the United States. What happens when one of the three decides it’s getting screwed, and secedes?
Along the same line, any parent will recall when their children got to the pre-teen/early teen “sleep over” stage. I learned early on to always make sure that the “sleep overs” involved an even number of kids. If you had 3, it invariably seemed to end up 2 against 1 before the night was over.
In the case of Iraq, where the tri-state divisions are, at their base, drawn based on already extreme hostile religious divisions, this “solution” appears to me nothing more than drawing “lines in the sand” — the crossing of which creates one more excuse to start shooting.
Furthermore, Iraq, as it exists today, can’t seem to find one leader who is neither corrupt nor acceptable to the populace. What are the odds of finding 3, whose popularity could only be based on his hate for the other two. And who draws the boundaries of the “state lines”? Would passports be required to travel from “state to state”? Who selects the central treasury to equally disburse the revenues from the oil rich “state” to the “sand” rich states”? Sorry, this is, unfortunately, redefining the existing problem vis-a-vis geographic boundaries, offering one more reason to exacerbate and escalate the civil war already in full swing.
One its face, this appears to be a dandy idea, “hunky-dory” in a laboratory model of academe; in reality, I foresee the “wheels coming off” even before the ignition switch is thrown.
Tony–I think Biden proposed and supported the “divide by three” idea LONG before heck of a job brownieback got on board with it.
So if you dont like agreeing with sam the sham, you can always agree with Biden :)
Now for the rest of what partition will bring: Shiistan (south and east) will be heavily influenced by Iran. While not good that can be dealt with. Iran has self-interests that differ from ours but they do want to operate in the world. This will be the easiest region to deal with.
Kurdistan in the north. This one would seem to be easy – it has been in existence for some tims. However, it has also bee a sanctuary for alQuada. Prior to the invasion this was alQuada’s only foothold in Iraq. Add to this concerns by neighbors that it could become a sanctuarty for Kurdish rebels operating in Iran, Syria, and especially Turkey. In fact, Turkey has already threatened to invade.
Then we have Sunnistan. Saudi Arabia (birthplace of alQuada) is already helping Sunni and alQuada there. This region is absolutely PERFECT for an alQuada base. Failed states are prime breeding ground.
Congratulations George et.al.
Nobody yet has mentioned the ‘T’ word in all of this: Turkey. An independent Kurdistan on their border would precipitate a full-scale war. They’ve said as much, in fact.
And if that happens, then NATO splits.
DOH! Guess I ought to read Ben Huie’s post before running my mouth.
LOL CF, but you and Ben have a point about Turkey…
It could really make things interesting.
“…are we getting an honest debate about our commitment in Iraq?” Well Randy you answered your own question with: “…counterinsurgency plan now under way calls for a long-term commitment of U.S. troops, at least for five years and possibly 10 years.” Huh? When has bush or the administration told us this? To build the nation bush wants to build will take more than 5 to 10 years. It will take 50 + years. Anybody ready to commit American troops to that? Will you send your kids and grandkids on bush’s big adventure? Will you ask them to pay for it at the rate of a billion dollars a week in perpetuity? Sorry, I aint in with that. I don’t imagine much of anyone is.
It’s not just Bush.I believe that Clinton, McCain, Guliani, and other candidates will only maintain the status quo.
TRACY,
Indeed. This is the Long Campaign for Global Oil Dominance. That’s what it’s about; that’s what it’s ALWAYS been about.
Cheney lies about everything. Why is it so difficult to understand that this whole thing was, is, and always will be about the oil?
Telling, isn’t it, that the Wingnuts have been largely absent from this thread.
It’s the oil, stupids.
CF
It’s about our National(and our allies) interests. If one of them has to do with stable energy supplies so WTF. Seems that some on the Left feel that the only righteous use of military force is if we have NO national interest in a matter.
And this thread seems a reasonable place to link to this WaPo story.
The plan was bold: By tying President Bush’s $100 billion war request to strict standards of troop safety and readiness, Democrats believed they could grab hold of Iraq war policy while forcing Republicans to defend sending troops into battle without the necessary training or equipment.
But a botched launch by the plan’s author, Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), has united Republicans and divided Democrats, sending the latter back to the drawing board just a week before scheduled legislative action, a score of House Democratic lawmakers said last week.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/24/AR2007022401420.html
CF, correct. It is.And was supposed to be a strategic hedge against Iran, for the same reasons.The USA follows the same pattern in it’s quest for global dominance.1st you decide what ’strategic interest’ to pursue (militarily)2nd you try to provoke them into a fight or drum up something like the Gulf of Tonkin incident.3rd, you declare ‘noble intent’ and ‘humanitarian’ reasons for armed intervention.
We need to change this policy of ‘nation building’ and ’spreading democracy’ through bomb-bay doors.The only way to ‘win over’ a nation is by helping them with basic needs.Not NEAR as many people are killed,and it’s much, much cheaper.
Heckler, if ya’ wanna play partisan now, I also read today in the WaPo that the majority of americans now trust congress more than the prez on Iraq policy.
Randy
If you paid any attention whatsoever you’d remember that Bush and others in the admin and at the pentagon have said repeatedly that it’s possible that we’de have at least SOME military presence in Iraq for up to a decade. This is not news.
Tracy
Leadership and doing the right thing generally are no synonymous with being popular.
Heckler – according to the PowerPoint from DoD that was posted here a while back we were to be down to 5000 troops by now. How is that going?
What’s going to happen is that we’re going to have people helicoptered off of a roof as the Iranians come to take over.
Tony,
The “3 states plan” was Biden’s and others’ idea. Brownback is claiming it’s his? Oh, that’s classic!
Heckler – so you acknowledge that it is imperialism for oil.
I agree with BIDENS 3 state plan.
Sorry, kfg, I posted before reading yours. I’ll sit on my hands, next time. :)
Not only is it control of oil that Bushco wanted, but a solid presence in the Middle East. Yes, we had troops in Saudi Arabia, but that was limited. Invading and occupying Iraq was a two-for-one. If it had worked, we’d have had a large edge over the rest of the world. As it is, we risk more than any of it is worth.
Re: Troop numbers and length of stay. From 2004.”WASHINGTON (AFP) – A force of 145,000 US troops may be needed in Iraq for as many as five years, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff General Richard Myers said.”
P_mom, KFG, and others,
Here’s the Biden-Gelb Plan:
The debate about Iraq in Washington centers on a false choice that is also a bad choice. Do we continue on President Bush’s failing course and hand the problem off to the next President? Or do we just leave and hope for the best?
There is a third way. Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, and I have proposed a five-point plan to keep Iraq together, protect America’s interests and bring our troops home. We recognize that while leaving Iraq is necessary, it is not a plan. We also need a plan for what we leave behind, so that America’s interests and security are protected. That is what we have proposed.
Sectarian violence among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds is now the major impediment to stability and progress in Iraq. No number of troops can solve that problem. The only way to hold Iraq together and create the conditions for our armed forces to responsibly withdraw is to give Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds a way to share power peacefully.. That requires a sustainable political settlement, which is the primary objective of our plan.
The plan would maintain a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis local control over their daily lives – as provided for in the Iraqi constitution. The central government would be responsible for common interests, like border security and the distribution of oil revenues. We would secure support from the Sunnis – who have no oil — by guaranteeing them a proportionate share (about 20 percent) of oil revenues and reintegrating them into society. We would increase economic aid, ask the oil-rich Arab Gulf states to fund it and tie all assistance to the protection of minority rights and the creation of a jobs program. We would initiate a major diplomatic offensive to enlist the support of Iraq’s neighbors and create an Oversight Group of the U.N. and the major powers to enforce their commitments. And we would ask our military to draw up plans to responsibly withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq by 2008 – enough time for the political settlement to take hold – while leaving a small force behind to take on terrorists and train Iraqis.
Dang, should’ve put that plan in quotes. Here’s the link:http://www.planforiraq.com/
It is true that we cannot allow terrorist organizations to take over Iraq’s oil supply nor can we allow Syria or Iran to dominate Iraq. Also, we cannot allow the Kurds to secede from the “union” as that would set off Turkey.
As much as I hate to say it, we should pull back to a point where we can “protect” the oil fields and infrastructure and protect the borders from foreign infiltrators.
Amercians should be on bases and in areas where they are not involved in the civil war. Let Maliki and al Sadr go down in flames and allow whatever cream there is to rise to the top.
It is not a good plan and it is cold-hearted, but realistically Iraq is lost and the first objective should be to protect American lives.
Since when is it “our” oil?
Heckler claims, “If you paid any attention whatsoever you’d remember that Bush and others in the admin and at the pentagon have said repeatedly that it’s possible that we’de have at least SOME military presence in Iraq for up to a decade. This is not news.”
I challenge that statement, Heckler.
When did anyone in the Bush administration talk about occupying Iraq for TEN YEARS before the invasion?
What I remember is Don Rumsfailed saying that the war could take “six days, six weeks . . . I doubt six months.”
Provide a link to “they said it’d be ten years” before March of 2003, please.
capn – “some” troops might make sense – just as we have ’some’ troops in many places. The projection was 5000 today. Of course, what is the difference between 5K and 150K to an administration that said we would have a balanced budget?
‘Mon Ben, the Bush Administration has “misplaced” billions of dollars in Iraq. So what is the big deal about misunderestimating troop levels by a lousy 145,000?
Shoot, it could have been just the placement of a decimal point.
Or something like that.
Yeah Heckler
Oh I think you will not be dancing your way out of this one!
” Bush and others in the admin and at the pentagon have said repeatedly that it’s possible that we’de have at least SOME military presence in Iraq for up to a decade.”
Now if you take out “bush and others in the administration”
You’re ok.
But you’ve tried to slip some folks in who don’t belong.
Heckler,
Of course American foreign policy is about furthering American interests. Nobody denies that.
What IS the case is that an honest discussion of American policy interests in the Middle East has never actually been conducted. Instead, we’ve seen the deliberate effort to obfuscate the real reasons for occupying Iraq, and the insistence on a shifting variety of pretexts. The Administration has lied and goes on lying about everything. And their incompetence has made things measurably worse, and the region and the world less safe.
The final nail in the coffin, however, is this: the occupation of Iraq actually works AGAINST American strategic interests rather than for them. How are we better off than before the invasion and occupation? And how are we now benefitting from Iraq’s oil reserves?
Seems to me the folks who are most benefitted are the Saudis, who don’t have to compete with cheaper Iraqi oil, since so little is being produced, much less exported.
The White House is so desperate to get at Iran, that they sent Vice President Cheney to Pakistan { Iran’s northern border } to berate President Musharraf {sp} for not resurrecting “al-Qaida”
One minute they say Pakistan is doing a fine job in fighting “terror” but Cheney is now saying that “al Qaida” is growing into a worldwide threat right under Pakistan’s nose. And , of course, Pakistan is sitting on their hands watching it grow.
The White House has a Hugh pile of bombs, which keeps gets getting hugher because their not being dropped, and of course we can’t have that.
And Condoleezza Rice is saying “go for it dick” we need al Qaida { the “terrorist thing” is wearing-out }.
I am not sure what to make of this…
From DU, regarding comment Bush made to the Israeli PM regarding Osama bin Laden.
“Speaking of George Bush, with whom (Ariel) Sharon developed a very close relationship, Uri Dan recalls that Sharon’s delicacy made him reluctant to repeat what the president had told him when they discussed Osama bin Laden. Finally he relented. And here is what the leader of the Western world, valiant warrior in the battle of cultures, promised to do to bin Laden if he caught him: “I will screw him in the ass!”"
I wonder what Pickles thinks of this and does it get her off the hook?
Sorry I don’t have a direct link to this, but if you’ll go to http://my.yahoo.com/index.html and click on the link for “U.S. Soldiers Dissent: ‘Staying in Iraq Will Not Work’”, you can watch the videos from 60 Minutes of the soldiers who have sent “An Appeal for Redress” to their congressmen.
http://appealforredress.org/
In the case of Iraq and for that matter the Middle East, any troops are perceived as a thorn in the side.Our presents in Saudi-Arabia was promised to be a short stay, both with the first Gulf war and now. The King smoothed over objections by vouching for that promise to his detractors with in the country.
So what is the problem with a small number? They are not Americans in the Middle East, they have their own thought processes, customs and believes. Much that we see as harmless is offensive to them, against their basic believes. If you want a personal example to show how that can be a problem, do you like rap?I know I do not, I can tolerated it for a short period of time. But would object to having to be surrounded by it all day. It grades on me, so I do not want to be around those that want to listen to it all day.Yes it is just music, I respect those that want to listen to rap, but not in my home. simplistic I know but it is a valid point as far as this goes.
Another point, how well would it have gone in our own history if the British has said “Ok you Americans can have peace with us. But you have to allow British troops to remain in the United States!”? It is their country, their call. To stay at their invitation is good, to stay at our insistence is Imperialism
snip
The Democrats are floundering because in reality, they don’t have a policy on Iraq. They know that the American people’s first choice is victory, but that is the one option that, for them, is not on the table. They would like to surrender, but know that the consequences would be far worse than the situation we now face in Iraq and the Middle East. And they haven’t yet figured out a “third way” that is anything more than a PR slogan. So the drift continues.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/
Ben
Imperialism? What’s your definition?
Does that not imply that we are going to stay and run the place? I dont think that’s part of the plan. Acting on ones interests(and the interests of many western nations) is not synonymous with imperialism.
As for the plan, well the plan(as most plans do) went out the window when the first shot was fired.
CF
“What IS the case is that an honest discussion of American policy interests in the Middle East has never actually been conducted.”
This was the only part of your post that I found worth reading.
WTF, man, the discussion’s been going on since I was born. The problem is Americans can’t come to a concensous(spell check is broke.)
Some folks side with the Arab states, Israel should go somewhere else(like into the sea). Some folks think the whole damn region would be a lot more peacefull if the (so called)Palestinian Authority and Hamas and the like quit acting as surrogates for the other Arab states and attacking Israel.
We’ll think about it after we invade Iran.
Inperialism – exercising control in order to control a nations natural resources. As you noted, we are there to secure ‘our oil’; that requires that we maintain control.
Heckler – how about if Israel quits attacking Palestine as they have been doing today in Nablus. Or their “accudentally” blowing up a family on a beach in gaza (which shattered a cease-fire). Or a more recent tank attack that murdered another family; tank fire tracked them as they tried to flee. Again, Olmert says “oops”. How about Israel allowing freedom for palestinians by removing themselves from the West bank. How about Israel allowing for peace-keepers to help Palestine to develop civil institutions. How about Israel lift their blockade on Palestine?
I know your answer – Palestinians must surrender and meekly submit to Israeli rule. Then the benevolent Israelis might allow them to exist in Eretz Israel as serfs under apartheid; no citizenship rights; no voice in their rule.
Heckler
Dems don’t have to have a plan.
They didn’t break Iraq. bush did.
Whatever America does now it does. But whatever happens to Iraq or because of Iraq is directly the fault of george w. bush.
Heckler–
1. Thanks for showing the blog that you were full of s*** on “Bush told us repeatedly that we’d there forever,” (when in fact he gave us every indication to the contrary) by not responding to my challenge of providing evidence.
Silence is as close to an admission of “sorry I lied like a b*st*rd again” as we can get from you CONs but we understand it fully now.
2. “The Democrats are floundering because in reality, they don’t have a policy on Iraq.”
THE DEMOCRATS ARE FLOUNDERING . . . oh, smack my a$$ and call me Shirley, what in the hell kinda crack are you shooting, dude.
37 percent approve of Bush–and those are just the REPUBLICANS
ABC News has a dose of reality for you:
“A record number of Americans disapprove of the war in Iraq and a clear majority now favors the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces even if civil order has not been restored there — potentially a tipping point in public attitudes on the war.
“While solutions remain vexing, for the first time in ABC News/Washington Post polls a narrow majority of Americans supports setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Two-thirds oppose George W. Bush’s troop surge; most, strongly so.
I pose a question: You are facing a severe illness that has festered and become critical. The course of treatment is not clear. You are in this situation due to malpractice of your current doctor. Do you “stay the course” with this doctor? Or do you “change course” by getting a NEW doctor?
My guessing is that we will be there for at LEAST 10 years and quite probably much longer. I am one who opposed this whole mess from the start. We never should have went there to start with. But we are there now and we cannot just go into another place, make a mess and leave. And I will say this- as a liberal Democrat- I am quite dissappoited in the Democrats being less than honest with the American people about Iraq. They know as well as Bush knows that we have to stay in Iraq for a very long term yet they continue to beat up on Bush for following the very same policy that Hillary, Obabma or aomy other Democrat will continue to follow if elected in 2008. It would be better to bash the GOP for getting us there to begin with using lies and fear mongering but to also tell the American people honestly that we will have to slug it out there for a very long time to come and that the cost in both lives and treasure is probably going to get alot more painful before it gets better.