My basic concern is that we continue the broad strategy of turning over fighting to Iraqi forces who we work on making effective enough to defeat the insurgencies and terror campaigns--without eradicating Sunni Arabs from Iraq and keeping a democratic system. And I have no particular love for the Sunni Arab Iraqis--they've been bloody enough. But the effort required by the government to kill them or expel them could set back democracy a generation or more. The resulting government might well be better than Saddam's, but it will be no symbol for the region.
So I've raised concerns about various proposals but in the broad scheme of things, even the Baker report could be used to advance the broad strategy. I'm not belittling various military proposals as irrelevant, but I don't know enough about them to absolutely condemn them or back them without reservation. They all have promise and peril. And if they fit in the broad strategy, I'm willing to see the details and then judge. And as long as our President is determined to win, the broad strategy will continue. That is the key.
This article describes the various ideas, saying overall:
Bush probably will ignore the boldest suggestions from a bipartisan commission that studied U.S. options in Iraq, adopting some of the group's lesser prescriptions alongside those drafted by his civilian and military advisers.
By "bold" read "stupid." Talking to Iran and Syria to get their "help" is off the table. They've helped enough, already. Or, I hope, the idiotic solve-the-Palestinian-question first notion is dead. And withdrawing troops before the Iraqis can step up is off the table. Again, I hope it is ruled out.
The competing points on the military side:
--"Go big." Add 10,000 to 20,000 troops Iraq. And do we give them a specific mission or just add them for the long term. Or do we even add troops? Do they pacify Baghdad? Destroy the militias of Sadr and other radical Shias? Go to Anbar? Disperse them into Iraqi units to support them? Add advisors to Iraqi units? Apparently we could add 20,000 and we could have up to 50,000 more for a short period (I assume by overlapping 30,000 rotating troops).
--We may also increase the siz of the Army and Marines. It would cost aboutf $1.2 billion per 10,000 troops per year.
--The Army also wants to mobilize Guard and Reserve troops more frequently than the 24 months allowed. With people moving between units, reserve units can be gutted as some troops who've reached their limit must be left behind when a unit is called up. Other units staying at home are then gutted to fill in the holes in the departing unit. And then those donating units will face the same problem when they are called up, cascading the problem throughout the Guard and Reserves.
Non-military ideas include:
--Benchmark the performance of Iraq's government in standing on its own.
--Talking to many elements inside Iraq to keep from having all our eggs in one ruling coalition basket.
--Talking to Iraqi's neighbors for help. But not bargaining with Syria or Iran to end their assistance to terrorists and insurgents.
--Abandon efforts to get Iraq's Sunni Arabs to stop fighting and just side with the Kurds and Shias to kill the Sunni Arabs until they surrrender or flee.
--Reverse de-Baathification and let high ranking Baathists into the government.
--Guarantee Sunnis oil revenue.
--Renew efforts to solve "other Middle East conflicts." Read that the Palestinian issue, I assume. Or perhaps Lebanon. Now that would be good.
So the President will pick and choose. Some will be the core of the effort and some will just be for the purpose of getting some critics to just shut the ef up for more than the usual two seconds while they draw breath to continue harping on their favorite root cause.
I think our president has chosen to win in Iraq. That is the most important decision to be made.
