Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Pentagon: Three options for Iraq. OK, four.
Posted by: McQ on Monday, November 20, 2006

As I said in yesterday's podcast, our policy in Iraq is presently adrift as various parties try to understand the political lay of the land while the administration and Pentagon attempt to come up with a new strategy for that war.

Well apparently the Pentagon is presenting three options for consideration, characterized as "Go Big", "Go Long", "Go Home".
"Go Big," the first option, originally contemplated a large increase in U.S. troops in Iraq to try to break the cycle of sectarian and insurgent violence. A classic counterinsurgency campaign, though, would require several hundred thousand additional U.S. and Iraqi soldiers as well as heavily armed Iraqi police. That option has been all but rejected by the study group, which concluded that there are not enough troops in the U.S. military and not enough effective Iraqi forces, said sources who have been informally briefed on the review.
Now, given the vague number of "several hundred thousand" I have no idea what they considered as a "go big" plan. I'd simply say that without that understanding I can't really remark in any depth about this option. On the surface, however, any such increase of our troop levels in Iraq would mean we're again asserting complete control over the situation. I can only echo what I've said for some time ... it isn't our job to break the insurgency. It is our job to train the Iraqis to do that. So given the implied mission that the Pentagon has assigned this option, I agree.

Option two, "Go Long". Obviously that means a long term commitment to Iraq at a certain troop level. Some may call it "Go Status Quo".
"The 'Go Long' approach is one that can work if there is sufficient strategic patience, resources appropriated and [if] leadership executes effectively," a military intelligence official said.

Another potential obstacle to the "Go Long" option is that it runs counter to the impulse of many congressional Democrats to find a way to get out of Iraq quickly. Planners envision taking five to 10 more years to create a stable and competent Iraqi army. Because it wouldn't lead to a swift exit, some Democrats could criticize this option as a disguised version of "staying the course."
The second paragraph, at least politically, describes the most formidable objection to the "Go Long" option.

So that's an equally unacceptable option.

Of course the last option is "Go Home", and is pretty self-explanatory:
"Go Home," the third option, calls for a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops. It was rejected by the Pentagon group as likely to push Iraq directly into a full-blown and bloody civil war.
Hence, a fourth or hybrid option is also being proffered:
The group has devised a hybrid plan that combines part of the first option with the second one — "Go Long" — and calls for cutting the U.S. combat presence in favor of a long-term expansion of the training and advisory efforts. Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said.

The purpose of the temporary but notable increase, they said, would be twofold: To do as much as possible to curtail sectarian violence, and also to signal to the Iraqi government and public that the shift to a "Go Long" option that aims to eventually cut the U.S. presence is not a disguised form of withdrawal.

Even so, there is concern that such a radical shift in the U.S. posture in Iraq could further damage the standing of its government, which U.S. officials worry is already shaky. Under the hybrid plan, the short increase in U.S. troop levels would be followed by a long-term plan to radically cut the presence, perhaps to 60,000 troops.
This is the plan I talked about yesterday on the podcast which has 20,000 more troops (about a division) put in country for a short period and concentrated in the Baghdad area to take on the sectarian violence. But the problem here is that to end such violence it would require a confrontation with the Shia militias, something PM Maliki has made very clear numerous time he doesn't want. So if you flood Iraq with troops but you can't go after one of the major sources of the violence, what can you actually accomplish?

Again, perhaps if there is any "troop increase" those increases should be among the embedded US trainers within Iraqi military units. We should be with them in strength so the training aspect of this is as well covered as possible and helps move such training to a conclusion. To me that should be the top priority within our military right now.

Obviously you can tell that the hybrid option is the one to which the Pentagon is leaning. And, in fact, while it may be the best option among those being discussed, it is far from the perfect option:
That combination plan, which one defense official called "Go Big but Short While Transitioning to Go Long," could backfire if Iraqis suspect it is really a way for the United States to moonwalk out of Iraq — that is, to imitate singer Michael Jackson's trademark move of appearing to move forward while actually sliding backward. "If we commit to that concept, we have to accept upfront that it might result in the opposite of what we want," the official said.
Which brings me back to the question I asked last week: what is it we want?

When we realistically define that acceptable end-state (yes, I know all of those things President Bush outlined early on, but most of those have been overcome by events or are no longer in our control). Until you know the goals, it's pretty hard to decide on a plan.

To me, the criteria for success in Iraq have changed. It is time we recognize that and articulate those goals we can achieve or think we can achieve. I think the best we can hope for now is a stable Iraq, able to defend itself, economically viable and at least neutral. And I think we should put a plan together to accomplish those goals.

And that brings us to a bit of irony:
On the other hand, the hybrid version of "Go Long" may be remarkably close to the recommendation that the Iraq Study Group, led by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former representative Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.). That group's findings, expected to be issued next month, are said to focus on changing the emphasis of U.S. military operations from combating the insurgency to training Iraqis, and also to find ways to increase security in Baghdad and bring neighboring countries into talks about stabilizing Iraq.
As I've been saying for some time, militarily, the emphasized line is the key to success. It is time to focus heavily on accomplishing that training mission and pushing the Iraqis to take the job of policing the country. Once that is done, the timetable for withdrawal will become self-evident.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
one, two, FIVE...
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Ugh,
Now there are 4 mystery doors to the Iraq puzzle.
Door 4 - The inverted backward loop with a triple twist, is such smell test failure, it deserves no extended comment.
The definition of success is simply, NO MORE DEAD BODIES.
The bodies will not stop piling up till the US goes back to TX & wherever else they get these occupation forces.
If the Iraqi factions need to fight it out for dominance or a mutual arrangement, So be it! It will happen, it will be done. It will be over...and it will probably not take long.
The sooner the better, so....

GET OUT NOW!!!
 
Written By: {õ£õ}
URL: http://
The definition of success is simply, NO MORE DEAD BODIES.
The bodies will not stop piling up till the US goes back to TX & wherever else they get these occupation forces.
Contradicted almost immediately by...
If the Iraqi factions need to fight it out for dominance or a mutual arrangement, So be it! It will happen, it will be done. It will be over...and it will probably not take long.
I guess they’ll fight it out without producing any dead bodies. Or something.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
The second paragraph, at least politically, describes the most formidable objection to the "Go Long" option.
This is also the option adopted by the Islamists and they are better at it than America.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
This is also the option adopted by the Islamists and they are better at it than America.
Anymore, just about everyone is, Angus.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
@ Flacy,
"I guess they’ll fight it out without producing any dead bodies. Or something."

Lemme see if I can restate so a 2nd grader can grok:

Success = NO MORE DEAD BODIES.

If Amerikanz leave Iraq, they will stop making DEAD BODIES.
(strike one gang of killers from the equation)
Whether or not Iraqis fight, they will eventually, (sooner more likely than later) stop making DEAD BODIES.
(Strike more killers from the equation)
They will then quickly rid their country of al queda & whomever else is making DEAD BODIES therein.

See Flacy, there is no contradiction. It’s just that someone has to stop making DEAD BODIES first. Since the US started it with their unlawful war of aggression, it is fitting that they should GET OUT FIRST, GET OUT NOW!!!! Then the US will be the first to be making NO MORE DEAD BODIES. Voila, Success for the US!

If that puts someone’s goddamn oil portfolio in jeopardy,... well, that’s tough.
...and it is preferable to what we are doing:
http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/2006/11/marked_as_allie.html

One more thing,

We should be talking about CAPITAL PUNISHMENT for this administration!
Have they ever done anything that doesn’t deserve a death sentence?
Give ‘em a fair trial, then HANG ‘EM !!!
No good ‘thumpin’ is complete without some executions.
 
Written By: {&#245
URL: http://
If that puts someone’s goddamn oil portfolio in jeopardy,... well, that’s tough.
...and it is preferable to what we are doing:
You just lost the (VERY) limited credibility you had. Thanks for playing.
We should be talking about CAPITAL PUNISHMENT for this administration!
Have they ever done anything that doesn’t deserve a death sentence?
Thanks for making my point.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Anymore, just about everyone is, Angus.
Give poor fanatics credit for their one and only strength - they are really skilled at chucking bodies at a problem until resolved. No democracy can compete with that.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider