Dem party think-tank's plan for partial withdrawal from Iraq
- Note: This post contains what I think is a handy little table comparing different withdrawal and redployment plans, including this latest one. If you want to go straight to the table and skip the analysis, click here.
I know one of the two co-authors-- Larry Korb, a hard-nosed but smart and personable defense intellectual who used to work at the Brookings Institution in DC, when I had a two-year fellowship there way back when. (By the way, though the sub-title of the plan is "A progressive plan for Iraq and the struggle against violent extremists", people should not really be misled by the use of the word "progressive" there. In my experience, this term often doesn't mean the same thing inside US politics-- and certainly not inside Democratic Party politics-- as it means elsewhere in the world. Inside the Dem Party, it often denotes a particular kind of technocratic, social-engineering approach to problems more than a leftist orientation... And that is the case here.)
There is quite a lot to applaud in the SR report, though I think it also has a number of notable shortcomings. Perhaps most significantly, coming as it does from a think-tank that is heavy with Dem Party politicos, is that it spells out directly the fact that,
Opponents of President Bush’s policies in Iraq and beyond have allowed themselves to be boxed into a corner. Some who initially supported the war in Iraq do not want to admit that they were wrong. Others fear being branded as weak.(p.3)However, the authors also position themselves cleverly (and I think, in a mean-spirited fashion) by making the claim that "many Democrats [i.e. the members of the party's small dove-ish wing]... continue to suffer from national security deficit disorder." Whatever the heck that means. I hope it doesn't mean that Korb and his co-author Brian Katulis are accusing the anti-war fraction of the party of being anti-patriotic? (A little earlier, they also caricature the position of those who have already, before now, come out clearly against Bush's policy of "staying the course" as being in favor of nothing but "cut and run".)
Well, given all that, I was prepared to be angry with the report. But almost immediately there they present a hard-hitting criticism of five of the key "assumptions" on which, they claim, the Bush policy in Iraq has so far been built. This part of the report is very well argued, and definitely worth reading (pp.3-4). Here are the "assumptions" that they challenge:
Assumption 1: America must fight our enemies abroad so we do not have to face them here at home.Their responses to Assumption 3 and 4 there are particularly well worth reading. (And of course, if Korb and Katulis really believed the truth of what they saying there, surely they should join me in calling-- as I did here and here-- for a US troop withdrawal from Iraq that is both total and speedy?)
Assumption 2: The United States must focus on Iraq because it is the central front in the war on terror.
Assumption 3: The U.S. military presence is making Iraq safer.
Assumption 4: The U.S. troop presence is helping Iraq’s political transition.
Assumption 5: The current size of the U.S. troop presence in Iraq is necessary to complete the training of Iraqi forces.
Certainly, anyone who still believes in any version of the so-called "Pottery Barn rule"-- namely that, because the US troop presence has done so much to harm Iraqi society, therefore it is they who should stick around to try to make things better there-- would do well to read Korb and Katulis when they state flatly:
Our present troop configuration has not stopped the steady increase of attacks by violent extremists in Iraq... [M]ost Iraqis do not want us there and they do not feel our presence makes them safer. Half say they support insurgent attacks on coalition forces and a majority say they feel less safe when foreign troops patrol their neighborhoods, according to polling of Iraqi citizens sponsored by the U.S. government earlier this year. (p.3)Given the strength (and ground-truth validity) of the argument they make here it is disappointing that Korb and Katulis end up calling for a "redployment" of the US troop presence that is considerably less than total and speedy. Namely, that they want to see (obviously) some redeployments and reconfiguration of the US troop presence in Iraq, to the point where the troop numbers would be brought down to 60,000 at the end of December 2006.
See the top of their p.6 (p.7 in the PDF file) for the snazzy map of where the 80,000 troops withdrawn from Iraq would go.
I should stress-- if I haven't done this already-- that these guys present what is at the core a very chauvuinistic argument for the need for a troop drawdown:
It has become clear that if we still have 140,000 ground troops in Iraq a year from now, we will destroy the all-volunteer Army. Keeping such a large contingent of troops there will require the Pentagon to send many units back to Iraq for a third time and to activate Reserve and Guard forces a second or third time. To paraphrase Vietnam-era Army General Maxwell Taylor, while we sent the Army to Iraq to save Iraq, we now have to redeploy the Army to save the Army.Their premises there may happen to be true, and their argument quite valid. In my view, however, this is not the core reason for calling for a drawdown-- indeed, imho, a total drawdown-- of the troop presence from Iraq. The core reasons for me are because (1) the troops should never have been there in the first place and (2) ever since March 2003 their presence has proven to be continuing, and often lethal burden upon the Iraqi people. Oh well. Even if K&K can't accept my reasons, as reasons, nevetheless they are pointed part-way in the right direction at this point.
I note that there are now, in addition, a number of interesting proposals making their way slowly around the halls of the US Congress that take some first steps toward... preparing the way for... eventual congressional action for a US troop withdrawal. The Friends Committee on National Legislation has a good chart of what these proposals are. The two that have thus far gathered the greatest number of co-sponsors are:
- House Joint Resolution 55, introduced on June 16, that if passed would "require the President to develop and implement a plan for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq. The plan must be announced by Dec. 31, 2005, and withdrawal must be initiated by Oct. 1, 2006." It has 59 co-sponsors (out of 435 members of the House; I think five or six of the co-sponsors of this one are Republicans, the rest Democrats); and
- House Concurrent Resolution 197, introduced by CA Rep. Barbara Lee on June 30, that would "declare declaring that it is the policy of the United States not to enter into any base agreement with the Government of Iraq that would lead to a permanent United States military presence in Iraq. " It has 48 co-sponsors.
| My
9-point exit plan
of July 6, 2005 |
The '
400 days and out
' plan by Carl Conetta, July 19, 2005 |
Juan Cole's '
two airbases plus Special Ops
' plan, Sept. 23, 2005 |
Korb and Katulis's '
Strategic Redeployment
' plan, sept. 29, 2005 |
|
| Does the plan call for a declaration of no
lasting US troop in Iraq? |
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
| What does this plan's deployment picture in
Iraq look like at the end of 2006? |
There would be no troops there then, since I argue that the
withdrawal can be announced at any time and completed some 4-5 months after
that |
"All but a handful" of US troops would be
out of Iraq by 1 Sept., 2006 |
He doesn't give a time-table; but if the redeployment
he advocates is relatively speedy only his residual force of "two airbases
plus some Special Ops forces" would be left by the end of 2006 |
60,000 troops would be left in Iraq by the
end of December 2006 |
| What kind of troops would remain in Iraqafter
the end of 2007? |
None. |
He gives no word on this. Maybe the
same as above? |
Maybe the same as above? |
Only U.S. Embassy guards, "a small group of
military advisors" and "counter-terrorist units working with the Iraqi security
forces" would be left; total numbers unspecified |
| What U.S. political moves does it call for, toward
Iraq? |
Just announce the total withdrawal and let
the Iraqis figure out how to help make it happen (as Sharon did, in
Gaza; Israeli troops and settlers were notably not attacked by Palestinians
during that withdrawal.) |
Ease up on de-Baathification to help with
inclusion of Sunnis, etc |
Essentially, hand the north over to the Kurdish
militias and the South over to the Shia militias, and keep the troop presence
there to help "stabilize" the middle. |
Continue supporting democratization in Iraq
but in a non-patronizing and non-bossy sort of way. |
| What broader U.S. political moves does it call
for, regionally or globally? |
Enlist the Permanent Members of the UN Security
Council in helping to convene regional security consulttations
involving all Iraq's neighbors, to help support the US withdrawal and build
post-withdrawal regional stability. |
A "contact group" involving all Iraq's neighbors,
the US and all its "coalition" partners should be convened. |
He has argued (early July) that the US force
could itself be transformed into a UN force. |
The US should convene a meeting of the heads
of all Iraq's neighboring states to discuss regional stabilization. |
Interesting, huh? Actually, I find it particularly interesting, at the diplomatic level, that Conetta, K&K, and I all recognize the great value, in the context of a partial or total drawdown of US troops in Iraq, of convening some kind of high-level gethering that involves Iraq, the US, andall of Iraq's neighbors. And yes, that would involve the US actually sitting down and discussing these issues with-- among the rest of them-- Syria and Iran.
I have been reading your columns with great interest, particularly those dealing with troop withdrawal. I am in absolute agreement with your position, along with what Mr Schwartz and MrAchcar state. Juan Cole seems to default to a vision of America which never existed when the subject of withdrawal comes up. His air war strategy is essentially the nixon/laird vietnamization strategy,in my opinion. The Korb/Katulis position does have many good points, but their smirking insults directed towards those of us who truly oppose the war cause my to lump them in with the Clinton/Biden Republican Lite crowd. I have learned quite a bit from your posts, keep up the goodwork.
WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ IMMENDIATLEY, PER YOUR PLAN.
RESPECT COLE GREATLY, BUT CANNOT AGREE WITH HIM THIS TIME.
ONE MORE VOTE FOR YOUR PLAN
VERITAS MAX
Joe O., you're quite right to mention the positions of Gilbert Achcar and Michael Schwartz alongside mine. I'm sorry I don't have them codified here.
Today in Al Jazerah (Arabic version) the Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabor Solag, said according to some document found during the operation in town of Tel-La'afer, that Al Qaeda thinking to move from Iraq to outside !, Solag said.
I wonder is it coincident or some thing related to the movement to withdraw the US occupation troops from Iraq, with Solag announcement? Or is it Al Qaeda really decided to move from Iraq this time? And why? What the development or what's changed?
Interesting question, Salah. It would seem that only one element needed to form a "perfect storm" of disasters for the U.S. is currently missing - a major disruption of Saudi oil supply. Al Qaeda is always looking to get the biggest "bang for the buck." There is not much more they can do to make the situation in Iraq dramatically worse for the U.S. and its "allies." Blowing up resorts in places like Bali barely gets attention these days. Maybe they've decided the time is right to go for the jugular.
After my last post, I ran across a link to this article from Lloyd's List on Today in Iraq. Key quote:
"As US targets in Iraq become less visible and harder to attack, Sunni extremists drawn from other parts of the Middle East to fight on the front line are likely to begin returning home. They will take with them enhanced bomb-making and combat capabilities refined in Iraq. Therefore, terrorism risks are almost certain to increase in several countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait."
Better fill up the car today.
John C,
Therefore, terrorism risks are almost certain to increase in several countries, particularly Saudi Arabia
If your reading write then the report in about secret weapons deal between UK and Saudis its looking write even the Saudis they denied the deal but the said they looking to update their defence network and military equipment and looking all the options from the major weapon suppliers!!
The weapons deal equal to $US71 Billion, I don’t know if the Saudis have the ability to drive and personal to use such big deal like this?
Or will be used by some one to defend the royal family, we know fro the history Saudis never ever used such advanced weapons even in Arab/Israeli Wars, they only send some military forces with poorly equipped with advice weapons that we knew they spending the money for!!
But the strange thing in that report is the Saudis put three conditions to UK to sign the deal
Defence, diplomatic and legal sources say negotiations are stalling because the Saudis are demanding three favours. These are that Britain should expel two anti-Saudi dissidents, Saad al-Faqih and Mohammed al-Masari; that British Airways should resume flights to Riyadh, currently cancelled through terrorism fears; and that a corruption investigation implicating the Saudi ruling family and BAE should be dropped. Crown prince Sultan's son-in-law, Prince Turki bin Nasr, is at the centre of a "slush fund" investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.
Blair in secret Saudi mission
I wonder if this same what’s happened in 1990 when Margaret Thatcher, went to Saudis and did same deal, then we found that Margaret Thatcher's son Sir Mark got commission from that deal …..!!!!!
John don’t worry its “A Storm in A Cup” this just to make you believe and prepared to pay more for the petrol which some expected to be $US100/Barrel more money to the shareholders and revenue for big giant Oil Group……
Maybe the whole "war on terror" is a hoax designed to strip US citizens of their freedoms and justify attempts by the US to rule the world by force. Maybe 9-11 was orchestrated from inside your own government.
AM
Maybe the whole "war on terror" is a hoax designed to strip US citizens of their freedoms and justify attempts by the US to rule the world by force.
I read in NYT yesterday about increasing number of prisoners in US.
The report showing 10% they had sentenced to live imprisonment and one third of US population sentenced of murders charges!!!
I think US had its inside own problems and they trying to hide their heads under the Sand of Arabs Desert.
What we see from the crimes of Iraqi detainees by US military and interrogators with cooperation with Israeli intelligence give indications that you will get more criminals behind the bars simply because these are War Criminals.
andrea , you may interested in this
Noam Chomsky - Controlled Asset Of The New World Order
This was from Josh Narins of SATP.blogspot.com:
1. You are assuming
href="http://web.krg.org/articles/article_detail.asp?LangNr=12&RubricNr=&ArticleNr=6465&LNNr=28&RNNr=70">there
is an Iraq to pull out of.
2. You are wrong about 4-5 months, if you thought that was a limit. Once the orders were given, it might take 1 or 2 months. Any General who can't get his troops out in 1 is fired. Being ex-military myself, I can
see it.
3. I see CAP as not at all Middle of the Line Democrat. Do you use VoteView? I think it should be clear that CAP is not the center of the elected Democrat Party, but the right wing of it. Believe it or not, J Edwards is more like the middle of
the elected Democrats. Voteview is a math site, and so will take a little getting used to, but it is worth the effort.
4. I'm not a regular reader. Don't know why you'd believe me.
For what it's worth, Josh Narins is a passionate (to say the least) true believer in the rubbish that Iraq is and has always been a non-viable entity that was "cobbled together" from distinct, separate regions containing distinct, separate groups that have historically hated each other and never wanted to have anything to do with each other . As someone with direct connections with and extensive direct experience of Iraq, I know better, and am equally passionate about what I know for a fact. I have had several discussions with him on this issue at Today in Iraq during which he often showed great indignation on behalf of Iraqis over the "fact" that the western powers forced them all to share nationality with the hated others. He also became quite acrimonious and personal toward me during our discussions. One way or another something about a non-Iraqi who has never set foot in the country being so emotional about this issue does not sit right with me at all.
As for that article he posted the URL to, it looks like nothing mosre or less than Kurdish separatist propaganda. It flies in the face of a number of facts and realities. For example, if sect is so all-important, how does one explain the fact that all of Iraq's large Arab tribes (and most of the smaller ones) are mixed Sunni and Shi`a? Concommitantly, how does one explain the fact that Iraqis are more likely to marry within their tribes and outside their sect than outside their tribes and inside their sects? How does one explain the high rate of intermarriage in general, which includes Sunni-Shi`a, Arab-Kurd, Arab-Turkmen, Muslim-Christian, and so on?
Whatever Josh Narins is knowledgeable about, it isn't Iraqi history or societal structure!