« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Center for American Progress: So Long, Iraq
In 2005, the liberal Center for American Progress broke a long-standing Washington think-tank taboo: it called for a staggered withdrawal from Iraq. Despite being far from alone in believing the Iraq war was essentially lost, no other think-tank had put forth a strategy paper on actually winding down the U.S. troop commitment, preferring to propose discrete changes in war strategy instead of a broader re-think. However controversial the paper was at the time, several of the proposals in "Strategic Redeployment" -- combat-troop withdrawal by the end of 2007; a shift in emphasis toward counterterrorism operations by a residual force of 1,000 Marines and Special Operations Forces; intensified regional diplomacy -- have achieved the status of conventional wisdom in mid-2007, thanks in part to the partial blessing of the Baker-Hamilton Commission, which bore some similarities in its own recommendations.
Today CAP is at it again. In a just-released paper, "Strategic Reset," CAP's Iraq team expands "Strategic Redeployment" for a post-surge Middle East, "in order to counter the threat from global terrorist groups and ensure stability in the entire Middle East and Gulf region." The basic idea is to pull American forces out of Iraq -- and U.S. resources out of Iraqi politics -- while entrenching a diplomatic and military commitment to the region. Among two of its starker recommendations: "immediately" ending the "unconditional" training and equipping of the Iraqi security forces and abandoning the Iraqi political process, which shows little capability of resolving sectarian conflict.
"Strategic Reset" explicitly endorses the Bush administration's strategy of putting "more emphasis on provincial and local leadership, rather than working primarily with the national government." But President Bush doesn't intend that approach to substitute for the Baghdad political process, as CAP does. Although there's widespread recognition that Iraqi security forces are either incompetent or sectarian and the Iraqi political process is mired in a sectarian morass, few proposals exist for circumventing both. It's fair to say that both of CAP's major offerings are ahead of the U.S. political consensus.
In a post-surge world, CAP sees "full redeployment" of U.S. troops from Iraq as possible by September 2008, to be accomplished by not replacing units as they complete their existing tours. The think tank no longer calls a 1,000-troop force to focus on counterterrorism, but writes that a "small and temporary residual force" of between eight and ten thousand troops should be stationed in Iraqi Kurdistan to tamp down Kurdish-Turkish hostilities, with the"goal" of withdrawing those forces in 2009. On the counterterrorism question, from CAP's perspective, the mission should be able to end in relatively short order -- the report says Marine and Army Special Forces units should remain fighting al-Qaeda until fall 2008 -- as an absence of U.S. troops will accelerate recent Sunni tribal shifts against al-Qaeda: "Today Iraq is a quagmire for the United States; leaving Iraq will make it al-Qaeda's quagmire." Should U.S. assistance be necessary against al-Qaeda, CAP believes it can come from Turkey or Kuwait -- endorsing air strikes on al-Qaeda leaders, a counterinsurgency strategy historically proven to be dubious.
There are some important points of vagueness here. For instance, CAP wants to restrict U.S. assistance to the Iraqi security forces unless Washington can extract some promise of non-sectarianism from the Baghdad security apparatus, yet those Iraqi leaders are part of the same political consensus that CAP considers beyond the prospect of sectarian compromise. Nor does CAP explain why moving U.S. forces into Iraqi Kurdistan wouldn't import insurgent and terrorist violence into a now-stable area. Still, if "Strategic Redeployment" is any guide, look for "Strategic Reset" to become a major contributor to the Democratic line on Iraq.
Comments (13)
kate2 wrote on June 25, 2007 1:11 PM:Gees, Murtha, all you had to do was call it "Strategic Reset" and we woulda been victorious long ago.
Samsara wrote on June 25, 2007 2:37 PM:Yea, but being labeled a "cut and reset" Democrat wouldn't of had the same "schoolyard-taunt" charm we’ve all come to enjoy over the years.
JK wrote on June 25, 2007 3:14 PM:Though I am all for withdrawl, the "American Progress" plan will continue to fuel war. Relative to this post, I think we should stop arming and funding Turkey's genocide of Kurds. Also, concerning the "American Progress" plan please forgive me for cross-posting my comment here:
Yellow Dog wrote on June 25, 2007 4:18 PM:Highly Flawed Plan,
I agree that the intentional escalation of the US-manufactured civil war should stop. The “American Progress” plan would be highly preferable to the Cheney + Neocon + Big Oil plan which has not had a grain of good faith since its incubation almost twenty years ago. It, however, would be difficult to be worse. The “American Progress” plan however is also in violation of international law and would also cause the death of civilians in the 100s of thousands (as the similar Reagan campaign of terrorism throughout Central America did in the 1980s.
The only moral course and the one that would be in the best interests of the United States (and the American people) is immediate and total withdrawal from the region. This is an obvious and critical prerequisite for any chance of success in the formation of good faith international coalition to establish peace and security in the region.
The “American Progress” plan would result in massive suffering, is based on false premises, and seems to be not much more than a political calculation to reduce resistance by the American public by the mirage of both minimizing US casualties and moving to higher moral ground, while at the same time satisfying big money (the massive War Profiteering sector, predatory Energy corps, and the big banking, globalization, corporatcracy crowd).
1. The plan prefaces with the assertion that Iran was our greatest rival in the region. (a) That the US is Iran’s greatest enemy is clear to everyone, but Iran claims to want peace with all countries including both Israel and the US. Iran’s claim is far more credible. The have not attacked another country in over two centuries (the US has invaded over 100 in one century, not including WWII). (b) As even general Pace admitted, there is no clear evidence that Iran is doing anything to arm or directly aid those attacking US forces. (c) Ahmadinejad never said that he wanted to wipe Israel off the map or anything similar to that. The audio of his speech is still available and virtually all of the experts translating it say the meaning being foisted on us by the complicit media is a clear fabrication. Also, he never mentioned the words: Israel, map or wipe. (d) As even the IAEA notes, there is no clear evidence that Iran is now pursuing or has ever had a nuclear weapons program or desired to have one.
2. The plan redeploys US forces within the region ...freeing them for other “critical missions” within the area. This would also be in violation of international law and strongly hints at attacking Iran.
3. Diplomacy is essential and is included in the plan, but the plan is for this to be done while the listed countries have a gun at their head, being completely surrounded with US massive fire power posing an existential and imminent threat. It is not possible to have good faith diplomacy or negotiation is that setting. The plan continues the mafia style extortion and protection racket that the republicans have championed for 40 years.
4. The part about taking an active role in solving the tyranny of the Palestinians and the associated bloodshed is right on target. We should begin good faith efforts for the first time. To show good faith we should begin by stopping the arming of the sides, stop the “False flag” attacks and the other black ops aimed at sabotaging the governments and all genuine attempts at peace.
This comment has grown too large. There is a mountain of additional evidence and pertinent history to support these points should anyone ask.
Sincerely, from one who loves their country and believes in the principles of humanity and simple decency (the second being a pre-requisite for the first). JK
Who was it who said you can't cross a canyon in two jumps?
Iraq is a bottomless pit of catastrophe that cannot be solved in increments of any size.
The only way to avoid total Armageddon is to withdrawal immediately, and by that I mean today, right now, this minute. Every soldier, every vehicle, every weapon, every building and tent, every contractor and all their crap, every stick of furniture in the new embassy, down to the last MRE and flashlight.
Whatever can't be picked up and hauled away, leave it and write it off.
Hand full citizenship papers and the deed and keys to their very own suburban homes in the U.S. to every Iraqi who ever helped us, and all his relatives.
Get out, and stay out.
Yellow Dog wrote on June 25, 2007 4:27 PM:Who was it who said you can't cross a canyon in two jumps?
Iraq is a bottomless pit of catastrophe that cannot be solved in increments of any size.
The only way to avoid total Armageddon is to withdrawal immediately, and by that I mean today, right now, this minute. Every soldier, every vehicle, every weapon, every building and tent, every contractor and all their crap, every stick of furniture in the new embassy, down to the last MRE and flashlight.
Whatever can't be picked up and hauled away, leave it and write it off.
Hand full citizenship papers and the deed and keys to their very own suburban homes in the U.S. to every Iraqi who ever helped us, and all his relatives, and load 'em up and fly 'em out BEFORE the embassy gets attacked.
Declare victory, get out, and stay out. If we ignore Iraq really, really hard for a long, long time, maybe eventually they'll let us back in as tourists.
TSUMBRA wrote on June 25, 2007 5:37 PM:"NAPOLEON III OF FRANCE AND GEORGE W IN A TRANCE"
Sam Thornton wrote on June 25, 2007 5:50 PM:WWW.ILOVEPOETRY.COM/VIEWPOEM.ASP?ID=92595
I keep wondering what special intellectual qualities are endowed by the act of sitting on one's butt in a Washington, D.C. think tank.
The sitees seem to be of the opinion that the act gives one near God-like omniscience.
The febrile tissue of notional options offered by CAP have in common with plans similar in genesis to those offered by their bizzaro counterparts at AEI that they are hugely naive, owing little to real-world realities or genuine investigation.
Who will rid us of these troublesome princes?
Anonymous wrote on June 25, 2007 6:49 PM:What drives me nuts is trying to figure out General Petraeus.
Yglesias Today:
"The training concept has become, in my view, a kind of psychological crutch for US elites who don't want to face their own basic inability to improve things. The idea that you could help resolve an ongoing multifaceted conflict by introducing greater quantities of lethal weaponry and better-trained fighters is absurd on its face. At best, we're in the position of arming several sides in a multi-pronged civil war in the vague hope that whoever prevails won't notice we were also arming their adversaries and be loyal to us down the road, which seems like a really, really, really stupid bet."
It is simply inconceivable that the General doesn't understand this with great clarity. This was his portfolio beginning in 2004 after the fool who was his predecessor was fired for not finding ponies in the Iraqi Army.
And please don't say that General Petraeus is an idiot. This is perhaps one of the smartest commanders in the military today. He absolutely must know that his nominal mission has next to zero chance of success.
I can understand the basic principal that serving military commanders don't question their orders from the commander in chief.
But, having learned some very hard lessons about this very question in Viet Nam, how is it a guy like Petraeus, with all of his talent and skill, with all of his direct experience in the theatre and with modern assymetric warefare, and with his direct experience in the Viet Nam debacle, where the commanders bent over for the politicians to the harm of the rank and file, why is it that he doesn't stand up and say "Can't or shouldn't be done?"
In other words, why are we hearing this from the ISG and CAP and not the Pentagon?
Samsara wrote on June 25, 2007 10:19 PM:Iraq is where the action is. What else is there for him to do? Retire, run a steel company, run for president, or we can give you free reign to try your ideas. So what if you fail, the war was lost long before you took over.
psyberdawg wrote on June 26, 2007 12:05 AM:Just to quibble with one small part of "Strategic Reset" -- CAP's counter-terrorism plan sounds like straight up bullshit:
>
Right now, the Sunni Arab insurgency is engaged in 'low intensity combat' on two-fronts: tit-for-tat attacks against their biggest enemy, the Shi'a, on the one hand, and opportunistic hits on former allies al-Qaeda as a way to keep American heat off while simultaneously using the US presence to keep the Mahdi Army types in line.
If we leave, the Sunni/Baathist insurgents will go straight back to being brothers-in-arms with the foreign Sunni terrorists again. (The Good Old Days, remember?) Together, they can fight the much larger Shi'a/Jaish-al-Mahdi forces, who by then will be receiving a flood of war-toys from Teheran.
And I'm NOT arguing for staying -- just pointing out a more likely outcome than our think tank friends are positing.
pt bridgeport wrote on June 26, 2007 12:57 PM:Psyberdawg:
Yes, your scenario for Al Qaeda in post-US Iraq (they team up with the local Sunnis to whale on the Shi'a) is at least as likely as CAP's (they are wiped out by the local Sunnis in a fit of nationalist pride.)
But either way, CAP's main strategic point - that Iraq becomes a quagmire for AQ rather than for US - holds good. Bad as it may be for the Iraqis, a direct alliance between AQ and local Sunnis in an intra-Islamic holy war will tend to heavily discredit AQ within Islam, making it not only a military quagmire for them, but the same sort of PR quagmire the war has so far been for us.
I also have to wonder whether Saudi Arabia and Jordan would be content to sit idly by while AQ becomes the great Sunni champion in the aftermath. They might just wave a few buckets of cash and weaponry at the embattled Sunnis, and intimate that, if they want a really reliable sugar daddy in their struggle with the Mahdi army, they'll have to ditch AQ In Iraq first.
Charles Renton wrote on June 29, 2007 9:50 AM:(True)National Security Interests ranked:
1)Force Protection during extract
2)Prevent --to degree possible-- any entity claiming they have "forced" us out.
Solution: "Mad Month" ala Vietnam's Mad Minute: sufficiently bloody every nose that presents itself + all those who credible evidence suggests possesses the capability of projecting their "jihad" beyond theater... for as long as it takes to arrange transport. Exfil "high-speed/low drag" units through Afghanistan. Disappear before the dust settles.
Mstessyrue wrote on July 9, 2007 9:16 PM:It will be wise for the Bush Administration to take advice from CAP and withdraw our troops from Iraq. This war has proven to be a failure and one of the biggest mistake in US history. This war has costed the American people $450 billions and has caused more choas, violence and poverty within Iraq as well as the US. According to the Borgen Project, whose goal is to eliminate world poverty, it only costs $19 billion dollars annually to end world hunger and poverty. With the money we have spent on this fruitless war, this government could have ended 17 years of global poverty. It is time for this adminstration to address and take action against this critical and fundamental issue that affects 1.2 billion people everyday.