CSIS: A Detailed Analysis of the Bush Plan
CSIS, 16 Jan 07: The New Bush Strategy in Iraq: Is Victory Still Possible?
Quote:
...The new Bush approach is considerably more sophisticated and comprehensive than the one the President could fit into his 20-minute address – which had been cut back from a longer 40-minute version. It combines political, military, and economic action in ways that do offer a significant hope of success. The following analysis examines the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals in the President’s speech in detail, but also adds important further details and clarifications by Secretary of State Rice, Secretary of Defense Gates, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Peter Pace.
A reading of these additional details is far more reassuring than the bare bones of the President’s speech, but it is clear that the new strategy and plan still do involve several critical risks, the most important of which are political and military.
The most critical such risk is that the success of his strategy depends on the cooperation of a weak and divided Iraqi government that may not agree with his desire to deprive Shi’ite militias of their growing power, on Iraqi forces that so far have shown little fighting capability and key elements of which are corrupt or allied with Shiite and Kurdish militias, and on the acceptance of a major US urban warfare campaign by a divided Iraqi people, many of which are hostile to the US and the presence of US forces....
Is the "Elusive Iraq Strategy" to Elusive?
There is a huge misunderstanding .... There's a belief that we have a defined enemy in Iraq, and that once you either put those folks in jail, or you kill them, or you secure the streets -- the fighting will just stop. That's simply not the case. There is a root cause of the insurgency in Iraq and it is not America, not religion, not terrorism, not race, not sectarian rifts, not lack of security.
Gen. Chiarelli's, in his Time Magazine article, eloquently says, "To think the security line alone is going to bring peace to Iraq, and solve the problems you see manifested in the streets of Iraq today, is absolutely foolhardy." We have seen that increased security alone is not the answer. Additional US forces only create a counter-productive confrontational environment. It further embeds in people's mind the notion of a police state and not a democracy.
On the political front, we have been working to create a democratic Iraq, but that is a goal, not a strategy. On the military front, we have sought to train Iraqi security forces and turn the war over to them. As President George W. Bush has stated, "Our strategy can be summed up this way: as the Iraqi security forces stand-up, we will stand down." But the president is describing a withdrawal plan rather than a strategy. So if Security Alone is not the strategy, then What Is That Elusive Iraq Strategy?
Counterinsurgency Takes Center Stage in Iraq
Counterinsurgency Takes Center Stage in Iraq - Christian Science Monitor.
Quote:
When Col. Ralph Baker commanded an Army brigade combat team responsible for a volatile area of Baghdad, he found that one of his most effective weapons was the handbill. That's right, handbills...
Fliers. Paper. In the United States, they're generally toss-aways, ads for hair salons or Chinese food. In Iraq, they can be an important way to disseminate information. The fliers helped drive a wedge between the insurgents and local residents, and they often resulted in intelligence that U.S. units could act upon, wrote Colonel Baker in a recent review of counterinsurgency techniques issued by the Army's Combined Arms Center...
Counterinsurgency is the graduate level of war, according to an officer quoted in the Army's new manual on the subject. It requires flexibility as much as force. Its objective is the population's support, not territory. And as the U.S. military prepares to implement President Bush's new strategy for Iraq, commanders may face the equivalent of trying to obtain a doctorate in six months. As they work with Iraqi partners of uncertain reliability, their task is to calm the near anarchy in much of Baghdad -- before popular support in the U.S. erodes further and Congress begins to press for troop withdrawal harder than it already has...
Killing The Troops Out of Sympathy....
Yup, 120 mm, you called it right. Ain't it amazing how all our professional, highly trained, motivated, disciplined, experienced, well equiped volunteer forces can be the victim of one man, George Bush? Our Legislators will kill them out of sympathy for their victimhood, diminishing operational capability by cutting funds which in turn increases the threat level and causality incidents. The SOBs will call them heroes, George's victims and justify the increased KIA/WIA rates to poor planning. I would assume their will be some attrition in the ranks of Officers once the dust is all settled and the 'victims' are home, which of course the SOBs will justify by claiming they were just saying NO to George Bush. It's enough to make a grown man vomit.
I'm so mad I could spit nails.....
I'm going to keep this short. I'm seething with anger at the Democratic controlled Congress and their stupid, nonbinding vote.
I have maintained throughout this war that war opponents were hiding behind the inane statement "I support the troops but not the war". This lie is now fully exposed. It has been a disengenuous effort to create a "bulletproof" position in the debate, a stand that nobody could possibly disagree with. But it was a blatant lie and always was. The exposing of this lie began with Durbin and Murtha, and ended with Engle and Arkin, these people just can't keep their mouths shut, they always tip their hand sooner or later. This stupid, meaningless vote that does NOTHING to assist our troops is the icing on the cake. How far are we from witnessing the spectre of our troops being spat upon when they come home?
The Democratic leadership doesn't care about our troops. Rather, they care more about their political position than winning the war. With campaigning season rapidly approaching, they aim to please their anti war core first and foremost. But, I think it's safe to say, that the anti war voting block will be counter balanced somewhat by the military vote. I also think it's safe to say that there won't be many active duty voters, casting a vote for any Democrats after this surge vote. And I think that goes for military retirees as well. I know I wouldn't vote for a Democrat if you pulled my fingernails out.
I raise my glass to our troops, who continue to defy the odds, and to accomplish what the Democratic controlled congress has said is impossible. I raise my glass to our troops and their leaders who never waivered and who are now on the cusp of turning this thing around.
