The always excellent Belgravia Dispatch points to this Brent Scrowcroft editorial:
WHILE negotiations on the Arab-Israel peace process are under way, we should establish some political parameters inside Iraq that encourage moves toward reconciliation and unified government in Iraq. Other suggested options, such as an “80 percent solution” that excludes the Sunnis, or the division of the country into three parts, are not only inconsistent with reconciliation but would almost certainly pave the way to broader regional conflict and must be avoided.
American combat troops should be gradually redeployed away from intervening in sectarian conflict. That necessarily is a task for Iraqi troops, however poorly prepared they may be. Our troops should be redirected toward training the Iraqi Army, providing support and backup, combating insurgents, attenuating outside intervention and assisting in major infrastructure protection.
That does not mean the American presence should be reduced. Indeed, in the immediate future, the opposite may be true, though any increase in troop strength should be directed at accomplishing specific, defined missions. A generalized increase would be unlikely to demonstrably change the situation and, consequently, could result in increased clamor for withdrawal. But the central point is that withdrawing combat forces should not be a policy objective, but rather, the result of changes in our strategy and success in our efforts.
As we work our way through this seemingly intractable problem in Iraq, we must constantly remember that this is not just a troublesome issue from which we can walk away if it seems too costly to continue. What is at stake is not only Iraq and the stability of the Middle East, but the global perception of the reliability of the United States as a partner in a deeply troubled world. We cannot afford to fail that test.
I still do not think there is much we can do to salvage the region, but I agree that Scowcroft makes a compelling case. Regardless, where we will get the troops required for a short-term build-up remains to be seen, and it does not look like there is any political will on Capitol Hill for a build-up. John McCain is, essentially, an Army of One on this issue.
Zifnab
I admit, Bush has been claiming alot of authority where he technically has none, but does he actually need permission from Congress to send in more troops? He’s Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. If he says march, they pretty much have to march.
Steve
No, Congress doesn’t have to literally approve the troop increase, although there are a number of things they could do in opposition. At least, if they summon the political courage to oppose a plan that only 12% of the country supports, which might be a tough call for Democrats.
ThymeZone
I think they can refuse to fund the additional forces.
Filthy McNasty
Bush has authority as CIC. That’s all the authority he needs as commander of the armed forces. If the 110th Congress wants to close the purse strings to prevent funding that mission, now is the chance they’ve been waiting for. Do they want to go the Vietnam route and/or cowtow to Cindy Sheehan? Or do they listen to advice from the Scowcrofts or the Liebermans who have balls, and have respect for the mission and for America’s position in the world?
The answer here, I suspect, will run the gamut of “you can’t fix a quagmire”, to “the insurgency has won, so let’s puss out…oh, and by the way, Saddam’s trial was a sham”. In other words, the answer will resemble nothing intelligent.
ThymeZone
I think he makes a compelling case for a pony.
I think he makes the compelling case a few of us were making on these pages over a year and half ago.
But he’s too late with this compelling case, unless we want to agree to agree that what he’s describing is an orderly and face-saving withdrawal, albeit at least one if not two years after the horse left the barn for good.
I guess I could go so far as to say that he makes a compelling sounding case, which is just a slightly different argument. But the rosy scenario that lives behind the drapes of his case is not likely to become reality. Things like “attenuating outside intervention.” Give us a break, Brent. This is called pissing on our leg and telling us it’s For the Tildren.
dreggas
We should just deploy the Lumberjack match strategy. For those unfamiliar with wrestling it’s where the ones in the ring have “lumberjacks” (ie other wrestlers) outside the ring to throw people back in when they get out of the ring and keep other people from coming down and interfering.
That being said we should just pull back to the borders, keep the Iranians out and keep insurgents from other countries from getting in and just let the factions go at it.
Brutal? Perhaps but as it’s going on we can start pulling troops out. Let’s face it shit is going to hit the fan anyway so we may as well just prepare for less shit hitting the fan than will hit the fan if we continue on this path.
But to lighten the mood I offer This
enjoy
ThymeZone
With No Trespassing signs?
Please, can we just cut the crap here? Will we stop the Iranians at the Starbucks-slash-border-crossing when the Iraqis are inviting them in?
I’m getting cranky now. Cut.The.Crap. Please.
dreggas
TZ,
It was a bit of snark, sorry I wasn’t clearer about it.
ThymeZone
No apology necessary, I have a cold and my head feels like a bowling ball filled with pain, and I’m just being cranky.
jg
The only reason this idea seems reasonable and prudent compared to the cut and run democrat solution is because most people have bought the hype that the dems are calling for cut and run.
The plan is simple. Trash what the opposition says by completely misrepresenting it thereby moving their ideas right out of the Overton window. Then rephrase their plan as your own and since everything sounds better out of the mouth of a supposed conservative no one notices the doublethink at work.
ThymeZone
jg, I think that scheme worked for a long time, but I think its lease has expired. We needed a dramatic shift in perception to end it …. and we got our wish, in the person of George Bush. I think the man could announce that the sun will come up tomorrow and there would be a run on flashlights from coast to coast.
I don’t think the old bullshit is working now.
dreggas
click the link at the end of my post it might cheer you up.
les
Let’s see ’em accomplish this part first. They haven’t managed it in over 3 years, there’s no reason to believe it’ll happen now.
Salty Party Snax
The only way we will be able to make our problems in the Middle East vanish is to use up their oil. After we accomplish that remarkable feat all of these problems so many are concerned about will begin to seem quaint and beside the point.
Top off your tank for peace!
ThymeZone
Cold gone! { sound of deep breath } Ahhhhhh.
That’s a bookmark.
dreggas
Laughter, still the best medicine.
BrianM
Scowcroft has again publicly advocated policies that the Administration has quite clearly rejected. Do he and people like him worry that they are thereby making it less likely that the Administration will change its mind?
In an optimistic moment, having Scowcroft publish this makes me happy: maybe the meme that Bush is blindly stubborn and contrarian is false. If it were true, a realist would take some other, more devious tack.
In a pessimistic moment, I see it as just a way for a member of the Establishment to establish that it wasn’t his fault, he tried, really he tried, so he should be one of the ones to emerge from the certain ruins with reputation intact. He’s not one of those “triumph of evil because good Republican men did nothing” guys.
Tony J
Shorter Scowcroft:
There’s a civil-war going on in Iraq, and since we can’t stand up to the Saudis, or put any real pressure on the Iranians, we can’t stop it. So we’ve got to pull all of the troops out of the firing line and back to those mini-cities we’re calling bases ASAP.
All we can do is train, arm and fund those factions in the civil-war willing to play along with our wider regional interests. This buys us a seat at the table once the smoke clears and, with any luck, we’ll have enough of our clients in positions of power to pick and choose which one becomes Capo di Capo.
Air Power. Hellfire misiles. Targetted assasinations. Heavy in collateral damage, but as long as American troops are out of the firing-line…
Whoever they may turn out to be.
Except that it’s the Saudis and Jordanians funding the Sunni insurgents who are actually killing US troops, while the Iranians are funding the Shiite militias who are our current allies, so we’ll throw in a word like “attenuating” so that George’s idiot son can pretend he knows what it means by pretending it means whatever the hell he wants it to mean.
We went there for the oil, and we have to protect the oil. If there’s going to be a Surge, let it be a Surge in this direction.
Even shorter Scowcroft:
ThymeZone
To the eight or so people to whom America doesn’t already look bad.
Zifnab
Pulling the purse-strings shut would be a daring move, but it also leaves the Dems wide open for “Why do you hate our troops?!” cry-fests from the right.
Let’s analyze why we’re there. Halliburton is still making money. Raytheon is still making money. Various Republican
shillsadvisors and contractors are still making money.Cut off the cash to the no-bidders and you cut off support for the war. I think that’s what Reid is doing in the Senate and what Dingle plans to do in the House. And I think that’s what will bring all of this to a crashing halt.
Tony J
You’re quite right. Allow me to rephrase:
ThymeZone
That still chokes me up.
With laughter, but it chokes me up.
F
I think the problem with the punditry and politicians who are trying to figure out what to do is that everyone still seems to be operating from the starting point of the Colin Powell “You break it, you bought it” quote.
My suggestion is we come up with a new quote, something from my childhood growing up in a rough neighborhood in NY “Oh Shit, I’m Sorry” then run.
Guys there is nothing we can do for Iraq right now, other than get more of our people killed, we need to leave.
F
Tony J
Though, seriously, all I got from Scowcroft’s piece was a plea for ‘serious people’ to pretend that Junior isn’t screwing the pooch until the reality of Iraq lands on an elected President’s desk in 2008. Acknowledgement that America looks bad has to be delayed until that failure can be hung upon someone other that a certain black-sheep of a family whose surname rhymes with Lush.
Dave
Of course the “surge” or whatever you want to call it is about Bush’s place in the history books more than it is about “winning”.
I mean what’s a few more America lives if he can declare “victory”.
Tsulagi
I’ll disagree. He’s still looking for that pony that’s already died under the weight of all the incompetent shit piled on.
I get that mentality. The thinking of with enough force and persistence you can get that square peg into the round hole. But in the situation today at this point, the people of Iraq are deciding their future, not us. We’re pounding costly square pegs into sand regardless of the relevance.
When have they been tasked with intervening in sectarian conflict? They have their hands full with force protection. By and large the only guys they go after are those involved in planting IEDs and snipers.
Shouldn’t be a surprise to Brent that those involved in sectarian conflict are dual purpose. In a bad guy’s workweek maybe on Tuesday he’s lobbing mortar rounds into a Shia or Sunni enclave and on Thursday he’s in position to snipe a dismounted patrol. Other than maybe those in the Green Zone like Maliki and Hakim hoping to keep their asses safe, large numbers of Shia and Sunni in the Red Zone think we’re also the bad guys.
Yeah, looks good on paper and sounds good. In a perfect world. Iraq ain’t perfect, and Iraqi troops sure as shit ain’t. If they would stop being players in sectarian conflict, that would be helpful.
Yeah, also sounds good. A plan. Let’s see, over the past years as we’ve been training ISF now to over 300k, how’s that trendline on death, violence, and overall security been doing?
Okay, let’s pick a number. I’d be fine with 450k ISF. When we reach that number, light up the fireworks, unfurl the Mission Accomplished banners again and call it done. Bush can declare he’s looked into the soul of the baby democracy he’s created in his image and proclaim it good. Photo ops with returning troops. Works for me.
Steve
A lot of folks don’t seem to get it. The November election was a mandate on the war issue, if nothing else. The American people are done with this war, period, end of story. The only question is how to wind it up most responsibly. Flailing around with additional troop deployments in hopes that “hey, it might work” is not an option. Trying to preserve credibility that we lost long ago is, sadly, not an option.
It seems to me that politicians of both parties disregard the will of the people at their peril. The public is simply ahead of the Beltway on this war, as they have been for a while, and the Beltway is just going to have to live with that. Blame it on democracy, if you must.
Zifnab
There’s only one person in this country who’s allowed to give and receive mandates, and he’s not worrying about elections anymore.
Krista
Nor should you.
Filthy McNasty
It would be daring alright, like committing suicide is daring. The Dem’s lost Vietnam by doing the same thing. Do they want to do it again? If they pull the purse strings, and things get worse over there, are they ready to take the blame? Are you ready to take the blame?
The Dem’s have their power. We’ll see what they do with it. This is going to be enjoyable politics the next few months.
TenguPhule
Shorter Filthy: I flunked American History.
Krista
An expert analysis from someone who doesn’t even know how to use an apostrophe.
jg
huh?
Krista
Tony J – you would have been better off saying “rhymes with push”, not “lush”. (Although, considering who you’re talking about, “lush” does seem rather appropriate, no?)
sidereal
Filthy McNasty Says:
Seriously, you’re like a living caricature.
You need to work out your masculinity issues on your own, and stop letting thousands of our kids and some unholy number of thousands of innocent Iraqis get slaughtered so you can feel tougher.
mrmobi
Zif, I think you might just be correct here. No profits, no war?
Ultimately, it’s a waste of time to engage the “one more surge” crowd, because they have been duped into thinking this is about a mission, or democracy or some shit. Right, Filthy?balls. In my view, brains remain at least as important, some would say indispensable. I think balls have taken us as far as we’re going to go in Iraq. Time to start thinking.
In a just world, Filthy McNasty would be Cindy Sheehan’s bitch.
I leve you with Dwight Eisenhower, who said, “When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war.”
Word.
mrmobi
This god-damned editor ate a whole sentence.
mrmobi
But probably not for you. I guess that means you are ok with an unlimited number of American troops dying in Iraq until we finally give up, right? Because it’s enjoyable politics.
Detlef
– Training which Iraqi army? Shia, Sunni or Kurdish army units? Or in the case of Shia units, units infiltrated by Sadr´s Mahdi army or units loyal to the Badr corps?
– And backup? Backup for what operations? When some government official tells the US army that this house allegedly is an Al-Qaeda safe-house? While it might be just the house of a Sunni leader opposed to some Shia politicians? How the h*ll are US units to know the truth?
– And which insurgents? Sunni ones? Al-Qaeda or secular? Or the Mahdi army? And Sadr?
– And which outside intervention? Right now, Iran doesn´t have to intervene. Their guys are winning. Or does he mean America´s ally, Saudi-Arabia?
– And “assisting in major infrastructure protection”. A few years too late, I´d say. That would have been a great strategy in early 2003. When “freedom was messy”.
I simply don´t see the “compelling case”. I see a guy not willing to admit that there are no good alternatives left over in Iraq.
Pb
Congress actually has most of the power here, they just aren’t willing to really exercise it. Depending on how you read the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002”, it’s possible that President Bush is actually fighting an illegal war in Iraq right now, to the extent that his actions go beyond its scope. Congress never authorized an all-out war, just an “imperfect war“. Of course, they could also rescind the 2002 AUMF entirely, or add conditions to it, etc., etc. The problem, of course, would be doing it in such a way that would allow them to override a veto. They might be able to get something through regarding the funding of it, at least–start by cracking down on the ridiculously huge “emergency supplementals”, maybe?
Perry Como
Sure, moonbat, but then the terrorists would know how many billions we are spending to fight them. And then all they have to do is wait for us to go bankrupt.
Why do you hate America?
Tony J
jg,
‘Lush’ rhymes with Bush.
Krista,
That’s why I used ‘Lush’ rather than ‘Push’, ‘Mush’, ‘Hush’ or ‘Tush’.
And Scowcroft is still full of shit.
Krista
You must have the most interesting accent…
Tony J
Well, I don’t know if ‘interesting’ is the word, but hailing from Liverpool I certainly do have an accent you could sand marble with.
BTW, what other way is there to pronounce ‘Lush’ without it rhyming with Bush?
ThymeZone
Bush rhymes with push. “poosh”
Lush rhymes with rush. “ruhsh”
The pronunciation guides are from dictionary.com.
I think most Americans will understand the push-rush distinction, but a Brit might not.
Tony J
Odd. On this side of the Atlantic they all sound alike.
God damn it, Amaerica. You’ve changed!
Tony J
Amaerica?
Never, ever, type in a hurry while in the process of leaving work. Now I’m late and I’ve got no one to blame but Thyme.
ThymeZone
It’s my bad. You’re off the hook!
Tony J
De Nada. What I should have said was that it rhymes with ‘Douche’.
Accurate, and quite suitable.
ThymeZone
Well done.