"Our Only Hope"

[SWJED]

9 January Wall Street Journal commentary - "Our Only Hope" by Eliot Cohen and Bing West.

President Bush has appointed a new Iraq team, including one of our best counterinsurgency generals, David Petraeus, to take command in Iraq; he is also about to unveil a new Iraq strategy. The apparent problem is uncontrolled sectarian violence in Baghdad and the apparent solution is to send more American soldiers to restore order. The actual problem is a dysfunctional, sectarian Iraqi political system. Here at home, the imminent debate between the Congress and the administration about the number of American forces is a diversion. We may need more resources, but first we need a strategy.

President Bush faces a difficult strategic choice. First, he can continue to play defense and send in more troops to undertake tasks approved by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The intent is to buy another year during which a nonsectarian Iraqi government will pull itself together. It is difficult to see how it will. Alternatively, he can adopt an offensive strategy with clear benchmarks, strengthening Iraqi security forces while imprisoning Sunni insurgents and Shiite death squads. The risk is that Mr. Maliki may refuse to cooperate, forcing us to walk away. In sum, what lies before the administration is a final strategic choice, after a series of large and consequential failures...

[Jedburgh]

As part of its Decision 2008 series, CSIS brought together members of the prestigious House Armed Services Committee (HASC) to discuss their agenda for Iraq in the 110th Congress. Participants were:

* Representative Ike Skelton (D-MO), chair, HASC
* Representative Jim Marshall (D-GA), HASC
* Representative Jim Saxton (R-NJ), HASC
* Representative "Mac" Thornberry (R-TX), HASC


Dr. John Hamre, president and CEO of CSIS, introduced the participants. Ray DuBois, a senior adviser at CSIS, moderated the event.

Here's the transcript: The Way Forward in Iraq

[tequila]

Interesting to read West's own article in the Atlantic Monthly: "Streetwise"

Abizaid’s deadline for Maliki to take on the militias runs out between February and April. What happens, I asked a senior American general in Iraq, if Maliki doesn’t exert leadership? “Then,” the general said, “we continue muddling through.”

In 1979, President Carter dispatched a U.S. Army general to Tehran to tell the Iranian army not to interfere as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini swept into power on a tide of popular support. Khomeini returned the favor by seizing the U.S. embassy and establishing an anti-American theocracy.

If Maliki continues to fail, President Bush will face a similar choice: insist on a democracy that has failed or signal that military rule behind a rubber-stamp assembly is preferable to collapse.

Muddling through is not a strategy.

West seems to be arguing here for a joint Iraqi-U.S. military dictatorship/coup in Iraq. Anyone here remember Ngo Dinh Diem?

[UCrawford]

It's an ugly situation right now, especially if al-Maliki turns out to be lying and has no intention of actually allowing us to go after al-Sadr. Muddling through by accepting the Iraqi government's unwillingness/inability to stop al-Sadr won't bring the Sunnis around to accepting al-Maliki's government, which will insure that the insurgency will continue. Supporting a government that allows ethnic cleansing to take place under its defacto protection will in essence mean that we're taking the side of the Shi'a in the sectarian conflcit (and all that entails). And bumping al-Maliki out of power is a useless move unless there's someone demonstrably better to replace him with, who the three major ethnic groups would be able to accept...which there apparently isn't. It's worth keeping in mind that neither the fall of the Shah nor Diem ended up helping us, so removing al-Maliki is no guarantee of a favorable result for us.

It's feeling more and more like this is a war with no possible upside to us anywhere, and I wonder if there's really anything that we can accomplish there anymore or if we'd just be better off letting Iraq's neighboring countries hash it out without our involvement. It might hurt us in the short term, but in the long run might withdrawal now actually be more beneficial?

[jonSlack]

ABC News: Iraq Troop Surge Begins

Under the new plan, the city of Baghdad will be divided into nine separate sections at the request of Iraqis who want one Army and police battalion devoted to section.

....

In a switch from the current course of action, these U.S. forces will be housed in the very neighborhoods they patrol. Military planners tell ABC News there will eventually be about 30 mini-bases, called joint security stations, scattered around Baghdad housing both U.S. and Iraqi troops.

[carl]

West seems to be arguing here for a joint Iraqi-U.S. military dictatorship/coup in Iraq. Anyone here remember Ngo Dinh Diem?

I don't think West is argueing for a dictatorship or a coup. I think he is argueing for establishing a legal environment appropriate to the situation.

If I remember Thompson correctly, he stated that the small war must be fought in accordance with the law; BUT, the law can be changed to fit the situation. And the situation as described in West's article will not controlled with the law as it presently exists in Iraq.

[Bill Moore]

Carl, you're absolutely right about this, and I mentioned this on another post recently. If we have this level of chaos in the U.S., such as rioting, post earthquake/hurricane, etc. we have the option, and have declared martial law in order to control the situation. Our current legal system couldn't manage this level of chaos, and we have a mature system. How the heck do we expect Iraqis to manage chaos on steroids with an immature legal system? The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens, and if that means takes draconian (don't translate as Stalin or Mao population control measures) measures (temporarily), then that is what needs to be done.

[tequila]

I don't know about that. The words "a democracy that has failed" and "military rule behind a rubber-stamp assembly is preferable to collapse" seem to indicate to me thoughts of a coup by the Army in order to implement exactly those measures you guys are talking about.