Iraq: Where's the Strategy?

On September 13th, George W. Bush spoke to the United States about Iraq. In his most somber assessment to date, the President claimed the surge has achieved modest results and a few troops can return home. However, "Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America," therefore additional troops will only "return on success." Bush implied that large numbers of Americans would remain in Iraq throughout the remaining 17 months of his presidency. He didn't present an exit strategy, but rather a profession of faith: U.S. troops can "win" in Iraq.

In his speech, President Bush emphasized he is following the advice of the Commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus. On September 10th and 11th, General Petraeus presented his status report to the U.S. Congress. He emphasized "progress" made in buttressing security and downplayed the political situation, where little has been accomplished. He argued that current force levels - 20 combat brigades - are required for the security of Iraqi civilians and there should not be a significant drawdown of U.S. troops until next spring. He suggested that substantial U.S. force levels - roughly 15 brigades - would be required for an indefinite period.

America continues to be deeply divided about the conduct of the war and its relationship to national security, in general. On September 11th, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Service Committee, John Warner (Virginia), asked whether the current strategy in Iraq was "making America safer." General Petraeus replied, "Sir, I don't know, actually."

The debate about U.S. involvement in Iraq should be conducted within the framework of national security strategy. However, the Bush Administration, and most Republicans, refuses to engage in this debate. Instead, the White House continually changes tactics without addressing the larger issue of whether the current strategy in Iraq is making America safer.

President Bush continues to lead the "stay-until-we-win" Republican phalanx. After having proffered various justifications for the occupation of Iraq, Bush has decided that it's the central front of his "War on Terror." "Iraq is one of several fronts in the war on terror -- but it's the central front." Thus, President Bush and General Petraeus want an open-ended commitment to Iraq.

Roughly a quarter of the American electorate supports the Bush stance. Because of the communication power of the White House, the stay-until-we-win perspective has gotten the most U.S. media airtime in recent months and support for the President's position has increased. Furthermore, the front-runners for the Republican nomination for President all embrace the notion that Iraq is the center of the war on terror

However, another quarter of the electorate feels the U.S. should immediately begin to withdraw troops from Iraq. Apparently, the remaining fifty percent don't know what to do. Writing in The New Yorker Iraq expert George Packer observed, "The country seems trapped in an eternal present, paralyzed by its past mistakes."

The United States desperately needs a strategic perspective on Iraq: a long-term view that determines the best course of action after considering national priorities. That's what Senator Jack Reed (Democrat, Rhode Island) argued for in his response to the President's address on Iraq: "Do we continue to heed the president's call that all Iraq needs is more time, more money, and the indefinite presence of 130,000 American troops...? Or do we follow what is in our nation's best interest and redefine our mission in Iraq?" Reed called for the U.S, to disengage itself from Iraq's "civil war" and to develop a strategy to deal with both the diplomatic issues in the Middle East and the pursuit of Al Qaeda.

Last December the Iraq Study Group, a non-partisan body, took a strategic perspective on Iraq. They cautioned, "The United States should not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq."

Both the Iraq Study Group Report and George Packer's New Yorker article suggest that a strategic perspective needs to consider three questions: How does continued allocation of 15-20 combat brigades to Iraq affect military readiness? How does continuation of the occupation impact the "war on terror?" And, what are America's strategic interests in Iraq?

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has proven incapable of thinking strategically. The President and most members of his Party are locked onto one tactic: "stay until we win." Senator Reed's speech, and the comments of Senator Warner, indicate there is growing Congressional interest in addressing the question of whether involvement in Iraq is actually making America safer. Historically, in the American system, it has been the job of the executive branch of government to develop strategy and the responsibility of the legislative branch to fund it and, occasionally, make changes at the margins. In order to change direction in Iraq, before George W. Bush leaves office, it will be up to Congress to redefine American strategy in the "war" on terror. While possible, it seems unlikely this will happen.

Comments

[LizM]

"In order to change direction in Iraq, before George W. Bush leaves office, it will be up to Congress to redefine American strategy in the "war" on terror. While possible, it seems unlikely this will happen."...Bob Burnett


It will also be up to Congress to redefine the strategic parameters and mission in Iraq, quite apart from the so-called war on terror. This also seems unlikely - despite the fact that the Biden strategy has been around for some time now and offers up the only hope there is to achieve a political accommodation in Iraq through the devolution of power from the central government to the regions, as per the Iraqi Constitution.

Everyone talks about the urgent need for a political solution but Senator Biden understands HOW this can be achieved. Waiting for the Iraqi government and all of Iraq"s warring factions to get their collective act together is not a plan but a recipe for a regional crisis with severe and long term ramifications for US interests and national security, and for the restoration of US credibility in the world and of its global leadership role.

Make no mistake...political progress in Iraq will require US leadership. Senator Biden stands ready to provide the leadership that will be necessary to promote an inclusive process to facilitate a sustainable political settlement between Iraq"s warring factions and to bring in the regional and major powers to support and secure that process.

[CriminallySane]

The strategy, such as it is, is apparently to leave the mess for someone else to clean up. Bush has always had that as a strategy, in any area of endeavor. Unfortunately for all of us, unlike his other endeavors, this time thousands of lives have been thrown away.

[Oldchef]

Bush is determined to keep to his war until he leaves office. His ONLY credibility has been as a war president. That's the lesson he learned from his father's time in office - when we were at war he was popular, when the war ended he became unpopular. In Bush's mind if he's not the war president he's nothing, therefor he will remain the war president until the (increasingly) bitter end. God knows there's nothing else at all popular that he can point to in his terms in office.

[Craig]

Why can't the Iraqis hire their own third party mercenaries from around the world to provide security if they want to? Maybe they weren't given a choice.

[Henry]

Imagine a couple of weathered government and corporate hands like Cheney and Rumsfeld undertaking a plan (with strategy that's unfolding) to put the country acinder/asunder, so that from the smoldering ruins can emerge the Phoenix that is emblazoned on their strategy meetings in western think tanks that seem to supply the bright ideas to the corporate captains and governmental generals. Feasible?
If this is not planned and unfolding then these republicans make Jethro Bodine rival Einstein for genius.

[BBackSoon]

How about a quick conspiracy theory? Once the Military is broken it will be easy to subdue the American public with the Blackwater troops. Just a thought, home I am wrong.

[Sumocat]

Only problem with that conspiracy is Blackwater is a U.S. company staffed largely by Americans. If you want to conquer a nation, it is better to hire mercenaries with no loyalties to that nation or its people. Of course, if we were invaded by an army of foreign troops, I'm sure we'd welcome them as liberators.

[BBackSoon]

I would agree to a point. You are correct that these are American's but aren"t most mercenaries fueled by Money, Action and the hard-on for control that you get when you are backed by heavy firepower?

If these guys can, in their mind, lump anyone that doesn't agree with the government as the enemy, then we do have a problem.

[Sumocat]

That's a gross misrepresentation of modern mercenaries. Many are ex-military who discovered their training and skills do not translate into standard civilian life and had few viable options aside from mercenary work. Yes, I have no doubt the money and action are lures, but if you need the money and are trained for the action, the life of a mercenary is hard to turn down even if you don't like it.