In my book, Chasing Ghosts, I wrote extensively about my fear of an expanding war in the Middle East on the heels of our war in Iraq. That fear is now becoming a reality.
With Israel and Hezbollah now trading blows, we are all getting a crash course in Middle East geography. We are also seeing exactly how intertwined all the elements of the Middle East really are.
This complex game of geopolitical chess is only going to get tougher in the coming days. And I hope the President will get himself, his dad, Bill Clinton, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Angelina Jolie, Bono, Dr. Phil--and anyone in America who can help--on a plane over to the Middle East to start working some diplomatic options immediately. We cannot sit idly by as these threats gather, Mr. President.
But with all that is going in with Israel and Hezbollah, we must not forget about America's own huge foot in this hornet's nest--Iraq.
With each passing day that America stubbornly "stays the course" in Iraq, there is an increase in the damage to our image in the world, the strength of our military, the security of our nation, and the stability of the entire Middle East.
This post is Volume 3 in my series presenting alternative strategies for Iraq. As I discussed in Volumes 1 and 2, there are a number of alternate plans out there that may offer a positive change of course in Iraq. But most Americans are wholly unaware of the options. They've been brainwashed by the false choice rhetoric of Bush's "Stay the Course," versus Cindy Sheehan's "Cut and Run." The alternatives are out there, flying around military and diplomatic email lists, but rarely do they make the mainstream media. These plans are more than just rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. They take into account the enormity of the problem in Iraq. They acknowledge that the United States and our allies must work together to prevent the Iraq War from expanding into a regional war. They also underscore our commitment to the Iraqi people -- we have a moral obligation to try and fix the mess we have made.
This week I offer for your consideration the plan known as "Strategic Redeployment Version 2.0," authored by Lawrence Korb and Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress.
The basic premise of the plan is that, "the open-ended commitment of troops to Iraq continues to undermine U.S. national security," but also that, "an immediate withdrawal increases the probability of permanently destabilizing Iraq and the Middle East." According to Korb and Katulis, the answer is somewhere in the middle: we can't maintain the current commitment in Iraq because it's bad for our national security, but we also can't leave tomorrow because life could become much worse for the majority of Iraqis.
So here's what this plan proposes:
1) Undertake Military Redeployment -- Reduce the current size of the US force in Iraq by 9,000 troops per month, while doubling the size of the current force in Afghanistan as part of a unified NATO force under the command of an American general. The redeployment also calls for stationing an Army battalion in Kuwait, and a US battle carrier group in the Persian gulf to conduct tactical strikes in the region as needed. By the end of 2007, US troop presence in Iraq will be effectively zero.
2) Conduct Strong Diplomacy -- The plan calls for a new focus on conflict resolution in Iraq, rather than nation building.
3) Launch a Gulf Stability Initiative -- This is a multilateral, regional framework that will deal with not only the aftermath of the US redeployment from Iraq, but also emerging threats such as the Iranian nuclear capabilities.
4) Put Iraq's Reconstruction on the Right Track -- "The Bush administration should develop a more focused approach for correcting the mistakes it made to date in its reconstruction efforts in Iraq."
5) Counter Extremist Ideology in the Global Battle of Ideas -- The US must develop new strategies to discredit the, "falsehoods promoted by its extremist adversaries." Also, the US should declare it doesn't seek permanent bases in Iraq.
Korb and Katulis state, and I agree, that to strike the right balance in Iraq, our expectations must consider "today's grim realities." In other words, there are no good solutions, only some that are less bad.
I endorse many of the components of the strategic redeployment plan, but I think it's missing a focus on metrics. How do we measure progress in Iraq? How do we rate how things are going? What are the benchmarks? Before we can bring the majority of American troops home, we must demonstrate that we have either adequately trained the Iraqi Army or exhausted all possible efforts to do so. Thus far, we haven't done either.
Now it's your turn. Go back and take a look at the strategic redeployment plan in its entirety -- what I've offered here is just a quick summary -- and share your thoughts. The comments so far in this series have been a refreshing change from the usual stubborn rhetoric about what to do in Iraq. Keep 'em coming, and I'll be back in a week or so with another installment in the "New Ideas Series."