USIP: Constitutional Reform in Iraq: Improving Prospects, Political Decisions Needed

[Rob Thornton]

Hey Tom,

Its something I'm trying to work through - in this case I'm relating operational success to AQ and some of the other AIF groups diminishing freedom of movement and action as they are separated from the population. The tactical successes are the individual tribal alliances being made (and some of the broader alliances being formed where the tribes are more extended) and the success of CF and ISF. Its does not fit well with some of the examples I was taught about operational success - because its less physical I guess. I think its important to define or at least come to a general understanding how to obtain an operational advantage in this type of environment without cloaking it in EBO campaign design.

I agree with you that it should not have been a surprise. Its fair to say its human nature, and speaks to that sometimes para-phrased proverb about "me against my brother, my brother against my cousin, my cousin against the world". Political relationships of convenience are nothing new - you certainly see them here. It may just be what works for these folks for the moment, but I think MNFI is pursuing the right LLOO. Its also the problem I'm having with our criteria being too dependent on what the Iraqi Central government is able to accomplish when they may not have the domestic political reach to accomplish it - that kind of gets to the questions that Marc & Rex were trying to help me understand.

I think I understand the vital interests part. I think its really about world energy markets, long term regional instability and the effects on the global economy. Its not just about where we get our oil, but because so many others are dependent on the region we could be facing larger global instability as states with means struggle to keep their domestic issues in check. In that regard, I see us involved in the region long term. To make matters worse we are the ones that took the lid off the box we created - so there are some other peripheral interests to consider -like credibility, influence, etc.

The oil/gas resources and the wider instability (economies, etc.) combined with regional power redistribution are what defines the vital importance of Iraq from a non-emotional point of view. From the biased, personal side - its the personal investment - I'm aware of it, but try to keep them separate.

Strategic success then might be better defined as long term regional stability - its just a question of the best ways to bring that about - it certainly provides more options - although some might be outside of our strategic culture.

And there are larger vital interests which are affected by the war in Iraq, some very much closer to home when it comes to funding choices.

I think that is an important observation that has to be weighed against our continued investment in Iraq. There are many domestic issues (immigration, health care, the domestic economy, infrastructure, disaster relief, education and many others) which could have been addressed and will continue to suffer unless we scale back our investment i Iraq. There are also a host of other foreign policy issues which have taken a backseat (the effects of large migrations, rising economic powers, pandemics, AQ outside of Iraq, climate changes, Narco-traffic/terror, etc.) - it makes you wonder if we even know how much damage has been done to some of those or how those problems relate to others?

There is too much speculation and hype regarding our future course of action from either side of the debate.

I think this month is going to be ugly - you'd think Don King was promoting the testimony.

Thanks for forcing me to clarify what I'm thinking my way through - it helps - although I don't think I'm where I want to be yet.

Best Regards, Rob