Iraq Study Group: We’re In Trouble
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Foreign Policy, WarPut a soon-to-be top ranking Dem is saying we need more troops. Interesting times indeed.
First, the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations…
of U.S. forces in Iraq that will allow the United States to move forces out responsibly; prompt action by the Iraqi government to achieve milestones, particularly reconciliation; and new diplomatic actions in Iraq and in the region.Former Secretary of State James Baker and co-chair with Hamilton, said later in the news conference: “We do not recommend a stay-the-course solution. In our opinion, that approach is no longer viable.”
The report suggests: “By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq.”
“At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams and in training, equipping, advising, force protection and search and rescue.”
While not recommending a timetable for withdrawal, the report says “the United States must not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq.”
So that means pulling out without saying we’re pulling out.
Now onto that Dem who wants to put more troops in. I can certainly empathize given that was my view for quite a while. It was only until recently, after reading account after account of how badly things going and realizing that we’re not going to be able to get the troops we need, that I decided we should just get out of there.
Still, I respect Rep. Silvestre Reyes, although I think his call for 20-30,000 more troops is simply not enough to stabilize the country. Try 100,000…at the very least.
“We’re not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies,� Reyes said. “We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … We certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes [like] Afghanistan� was before the 2001 invasion by the United States.Reyes also stressed that there needed to be greater “political accountability� demanded of the Iraqi government. But on the core issue of the U.S. commitment, Reyes�a Vietnam War veteran who partially lost his hearing in that conflict�even compared his position to that of another Vietnam vet, Sen. John McCain, a staunch supporter of the Iraq war. Like Reyes, McCain also has called for an increase in U.S. troop strength. When asked how many additional troops he envisioned sending to Iraq, Reyes replied: “I would say 20,000 to 30,000�for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military.�
And here’s where the two meet…and are Reyes ideas feasible?
One source familiar with aspects of the Baker-Hamilton panel’s deliberations said that the idea of an increase of U.S. troop strength of 20,000 to 30,000 had been pushed by some U.S. military commanders for some time. However, Democratic members of the commission were unwilling to go along with any proposal that would indicate an expansion of the U.S. mission in that country, according to the source, who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive matters.Yet another member of the Baker-Hamilton advisory panel praised Reyes for proposing the idea of increasing troops, saying it showed that he “doesn’t just fall back on political reflex.� But, added Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution who formerly served as a U.S. political advisor in Iraq, Reyes’s ideas were unlikely to bear fruit unless accompanied with a far more extensive strategy that included a “political and diplomatic� initiative to reorder and rebuild support for the Iraqi government. “You can’t sustain an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 troops for very long�maybe four to six months,� Diamond said. “Can you really secure progress on the ground in terms of knocking out death squads and militia activity in four to six months? It won’t make sense unless it’s combined with very intensive political and constitutional activity. Otherwise putting in more troops is like putting more fingers in the dike … I don’t think there is any magic bullet.�
There’s no magic bullet and there’s no magic strategy. The only thing we can do now is weigh whether or not we want to be bogged down in Iraq until they somehow figure out how to live in peace.
We could be waiting decades.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 6th, 2006 and is filed under Foreign Policy, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 6th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Daddy’s mates doing their best to save his son’s derriere I suspect.
More to the point, what son ever listened to his father’s advice?
December 6th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
There are good points in the article. I would like to supplement them with some information:
I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak.
If you are interested in a view of the inside of the Pentagon procurement process from Vietnam to Iraq please check the posting at my blog entitled, “Odyssey of Armements�
http://www.rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com
The Pentagon is a giant,incredibly complex establishment,budgeted in excess of $500B per year. The Rumsfelds, the Adminisitrations and the Congressmen come and go but the real machinery of policy and procurement keeps grinding away, presenting the politicos who arrive with detail and alternatives slanted to perpetuate itself.
How can any newcomer, be he a President, a Congressman or even the Sec. Def. to be – Mr. Gates- understand such complexity, particulary if heretofore he has not had the clearance to get the full details?
Answer- he can’t. Therefor he accepts the alternatives provided by the career establishment that never goes away and he hopes he makes the right choices. Or he is influenced by a lobbyist or two representing companies in his district or special interest groups.
From a practical standpoint, policy and war decisions are made far below the levels of the talking heads who take the heat or the credit for the results.
This situation is unfortunate but it is ablsolute fact. Take it from one who has been to war and worked in the establishment.
This giant policy making and war machine will eventually come apart and have to be put back together to operate smaller, leaner and on less fuel. But that won’t happen unitil it hits a brick wall at high speed.
We will then have to run a Volkswagon instead of a Caddy and get along somehow. We better start practicing now and get off our high horse. Our golden aura in the world is beginning to dull from arrogance.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
Quite insightful, but what do you think will be that ONE event that makes the Pentagon shape up?
Personally, I don’t think it’s one event. I think it’s a slow steady decline and an outcry from the American people as to why our defense budget is going up while our economy is in the tank. It may be 50 years from now, but it’s still a reality I think I’ll see in my lifetime.
December 7th, 2006 at 12:42 am
Reyes’s was interviewed on Ed Schultz’s program today and he said he made the increased troops comment in August of 2005. Moreover, he wasn’t talking about an additional 20,000-30,000 troops but rather troops already present in Iraq. He wanted to take troops that were already in Iraq and bring them to Bagdad to fight the militias. It’s also important to note that Reyes voted against the Iraq War Resolution and was proud of the fact that he convinced the Hispanic caucus to also vote against the resolution which they did. His stated reasoning at the time was that as a standing member of the House Intelligence committe he had access to considerable intelligence information and believed that the Bush administration was cherry picking and distorting the intelligence. The intelligence he saw didn’t support going to war.
Rick
December 7th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Government Computer News (GCN) recently carried a story on the difficulties experienced with, “Performance-Based Contracting”. The process was made part of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) recently in an attempt to pre-establish at contract award those discrete outcomes that determine if and when a contractor will be paid.
Interestingly enough, the article splits the blame for the difficulties right down the middle, stating the government typically has problems defining what it wants as an end product or outcome and looks to contractors to define it for them. More than willing to do so, the contactors detail specific end products or outcomes, set schedule milestones and submit competitive proposals.
The winner is selected based on what the government thinks it needs at the time to fullfill its requirement and a contract is negotiated. Once underway, the government decides it wants something else (usually a management-by-government committee phenomina with a contractor growing his product or service by offering lots of options).
The resulting change of contract scope invalidates the original price and schedule, so a whole new round of proposals and negotiations must occur with the winner while the losers si watch something totally different evolve than that for which they competed. The clock keeps ticking and the winner keeps getting his montlhy bill paid based on incurred cost or progress payments.
The link to the GCN ariticle is below and is yet another indication of how government keeps getting bigger by incompetancy:
http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/42691-1.html
For your holiday enjoyment, latch onto the 1980’s HBO Movie, “The Pentagon Wars”, a humorous but remarkably true story of the design and development of one of the costliest weapons systems ever to grace the Pentagon Budget, the “Bradley Fighting Vehicle”. The movie starred Kelsey Grammer as the Pentagon General who led the government establishment sponsoring the vehicle program. The profusion of design and performance specification changes and other difficulties which plagued the program for years was hilariously but accurately portrayed in the film. It was nominated for an Emmy.
Further details on Defense Industrial Complex procurement see the posting entitled, “Odyssey of Armaments” at:
http://www.rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com
December 7th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
With so much at stake, I thought you’d be interested in knowing what we found to be public opinion/perception on these complicated issues. Generally speaking, the public consistently favors diplomacy over force in foreign affairs. According to our Foreign Policy Index, 61% of Americans favor more emphasis on diplomatic and economic methods when it comes to fighting terrorism. Contact me for more or go to http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/major_proposals_detail.cfm?issue_type=americas_global_role&list=2 for more information.