PDA

View Full Version : White House gropes for new Iraq strategy


lily
12-09-2006, 02:22 PM
Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16115776/)

White House gropes for new Iraq strategy

Effort to unveil new plan by Christmas focuses on three main options



By Robin Wright and Peter Baker

Updated: 5:03 a.m. ET Dec 9, 2006
As pressure mounts for a change of course in Iraq, the Bush administration
is groping for a viable new strategy for the president to unveil by
Christmas, with deliberations now focused on three main options to redefine
the U.S. military and political engagement, according to officials familiar
with the debate.

The major alternatives include a short-term surge of 15,000 to 30,000
additional U.S. troops to secure Baghdad and accelerate the training of
Iraqi forces. Another strategy would redirect the U.S. military away from
the internal strife to focus mainly on hunting terrorists affiliated with
al-Qaeda. And the third would concentrate political attention on supporting
the majority Shiites and abandon U.S. efforts to reach out to Sunni
insurgents.



As President Bush and his advisers rush to complete their crash review and
craft a new formula in the next two weeks, some close to the process said
the major goal seems to be to stake out alternatives to the plan presented
this week by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. The White House denied trying
to brush off the study group's report and said those recommendations are
being considered alongside internal reviews.



But the growing undercurrent of discussions within the administration is
shifting responsibility for Iraq's problems to Iraqis. Sources familiar with
the deliberations describe fatigue, frustration and a growing desire to
disengage from Iraq. The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because
of the sensitive nature of the deliberations.

"None of us see the situation in Iraq as favorable. We all see it as
extremely difficult," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday.

Bevy of meetings planned
Bush will devote most of next week to his Iraq review. He plans to visit the
State Department on Monday to consult with his foreign policy team, then he
will host independent Iraq experts in the Oval Office. The next day, he will
hold a videoconference with U.S. military commanders and U.S. Ambassador
Zalmay Khalilzad in Iraq. He will travel to the Pentagon for more
consultations on Wednesday.



The crash White House review -- which involves the State Department, the
National Security Council, the CIA and the Pentagon -- is tentatively
expected to lead to a speech to the nation the week of Dec. 18, officials
say.

Shift to strictly anti-terror role?
While one of the options involves a surge of U.S. troops, there is no
agreement on what the mission of those forces would be, sources say.
Discussions center on accelerating the training of Iraqi forces and helping
secure Baghdad before turning it over to the Iraqis. The goal generally
could be to improve Iraq's defense capabilities so U.S. combat troops could
begin to withdraw faster.

The second idea is the "al-Qaeda option," which would transform the U.S.
mission to focus on fighting terrorism and would disengage forces from
domestic aspects of the multisided conflict. U.S. troops would take a
backseat on the Shiite-Sunni conflict and instead hunt down al-Qaeda
operatives, the sources say.


On the ground, for example, that could mean a shift away from operations in
Baghdad's volatile Sadr City slum, or from efforts to stop car bombs and
sectarian attacks. The administration is increasingly resigned to the fact
that it can neither prevent nor intervene in Iraq's sectarian war, which has
begun to supersede both the Sunni insurgency and al-Qaeda's operations, the
sources say.

The two military options are not necessarily linked. Some in the interagency
discussions favor both, while others support the al-Qaeda option but not a
military surge, the sources say.

Pursuing an ‘80 percent solution’
On the political front, the administration is focusing increasingly on
variations of a "Shiite tilt," sometimes called an "80 percent solution,"
that would bolster the political center of Iraq and effectively leave in
charge the Shiite and Kurdish parties that account for 80 percent of Iraq's
26 million people and that won elections a year ago.

Vice President Cheney's office has most vigorously argued for the "80
percent solution," in terms of both realities on the ground and the history
of U.S. engagement with the Shiites, sources say. A source familiar with the
discussions said Cheney argued this week that the United States could not
again be seen to abandon the Shiites, Iraq's largest population group, after
calling in 1991 for them to rise up against then-President Saddam Hussein
and then failing to support them when they did. Thousands were killed in a
huge crackdown.

Of the major proposals under discussion, only the "al-Qaeda option" is
reflected in the Iraq Study Group's report. Recommendation 43 calls for the
United States to shift priority to "the training, equipping, advising, and
support mission and to counterterrorism operations."


Panel wary of more troops
The study group says it could support a short-term troop surge but notes
that "past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as
soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area." The report does not, in the
end, recommend more troops.

Senior administration officials caution that the review process is still
fluid. "I don't think we're at the stage where we're coalescing around an
option," said a top official who declined to speak on the record about
internal deliberations. "These are everything's-on-the-table kinds of
discussions."

Yet as it changes course, the administration is still struggling to resolve
central issues, including how much it trusts Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki to tackle the two issues basic to stability: reconciliation and
the militias that are fueling the sectarian violence. Despite Bush's public
endorsement of Maliki after their meeting in Amman last week, U.S. officials
have not yet decided whether he has the will or the capability to take on
his brethren Shiites in the name of national reconciliation -- either by
dismantling their militias or getting them to embrace the Sunni minority.

Mending fences with Iraq Study Group
Bush aides said the president has been misinterpreted by those who believe
he is giving the back of his hand to the Iraq Study Group, led by former
congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.) and former secretary of state James A.
Baker III, and they insist that the report's ideas are now part of the
administration's review. "There's not a purpose to distinguish or make a
distinction from the Baker-Hamilton commission," the senior official said.
"In fact, many of their proposals are being seriously considered."

If anything, the official argued, the commission gave Bush some running room
by rejecting a rapid troop withdrawal, something some Democrats have
advocated. "Nobody's going to go below what they said," the official said,
meaning that because the study group set a goal of pulling out combat units
by early 2008, that is now the earliest that troops could be withdrawn.

But the stature of commission members means that the White House will have
to justify any deviations from their plan. "The onus will be on us to
explain why we are doing something they recommended or why not," the
official said. "They can't just be jettisoned. They have to be dealt with."

The president, who met yesterday with congressional leaders, vowed to work
with Democrats to forge a common strategy. "We talked about the need for a
new way forward in Iraq," Bush told reporters. "And we talked about the need
to work together on this important subject."

~~~~~~~~~~~

The major alternatives include a short-term surge of 15,000 to 30,000
additional U.S. troops to secure Baghdad and accelerate the training of
Iraqi forces.

Well, this is stay the course, we know this isn't working.

Another strategy would redirect the U.S. military away from
the internal strife to focus mainly on hunting terrorists affiliated with
al-Qaeda.

Well, duh.......isn't this what an army is for?

And the third would concentrate political attention on supporting
the majority Shiites and abandon U.S. efforts to reach out to Sunni
insurgents.

A do-over????

Disenfranchised
12-09-2006, 03:56 PM
I think the White House is trying to find a way to mollify the American people. They desparatly want us to support them and their efforts. This is what victory is to Bu$h and Co. If they can leave office while still in Iraq, failure to achive a stable government there will be the next administration's fault and Bu$h will not be seen as badly in history as if he has to pull our forces out and leave Iraq in turmoil.

The whole war was Bu$h's baby and it will always be his fu**up. America has cought on to him. We won't be fooled again, I hope.

lily
12-09-2006, 07:24 PM
Sadly, I'm resigned to having to agree with you, Disenfranchised. There is not going to be anything different done while Bush is in office. He refuses to believe there is anything wrong. Two years is a long time to wait. How many more soldiers will have to die? How many more Iraqi citizens will have to suffer and die, all for one man's vanity, not to mention the world becoming more and more distabilized.



On a sidenote......welcome to the forums! Could you drop by introductions and tell us a little about the Green Party? I do believe you may be the first member we have from that party. I'd like to know more about them. This country is ready for a viable third party.

ECW
12-09-2006, 09:13 PM
I think the White House is trying to find a way to mollify the American people.Â*Â*They desparatly want us to support them and their efforts.Â*Â*This is what victory is to Bu$h and Co.Â*Â*If they can leave office while still in Iraq, failure to achive a stable government there will be the next administration's fault and Bu$h will not be seen as badly in history as if he has to pull our forces out and leave Iraq in turmoil.

The whole war was Bu$h's baby and it will always be his fu**up.Â*Â*America has cought on to him.Â*Â*We won't be fooled again, I hope.



History will not look kindly upon Chimpy but I doubt it will lay any blame on the next president unless he digs us in deeper than we are now (like LBJ did). This is Chimpy's quagmire, no one else's. I'll believe that he is interested in working with Democrats when I see it. He hasn't so far.

lily
12-09-2006, 09:56 PM
History will not look kindly upon Chimpy but I doubt it will lay any blame on the next president unless he digs us in deeper than we are now (like LBJ did). This is Chimpy's quagmire, no one else's. I'll believe that he is interested in working with Democrats when I see it. He hasn't so far.



The sad fact is, ECW it's the president that is in office who takes the blame/credit if we loose/win a war, not the one that got us into it.

Waffletush
12-09-2006, 10:27 PM
The sad fact is, ECW it's the president that is in office who takes the blame/credit if we loose/win a war, not the one that got us into it.

Same thing can be said about the economy and how the <ahem> immediate recession was all Bush's fault, but we digress...