Email from JB – Moon of Alabama

November 16, 2006

Email from JB

From: JB
To: WritersTeam
Subj: Commission Draft

All,

we have decided a seven point outline for the new "save-George" product. Please have a draft text ready along the outline by Friday noon – Dick and Henry will revise over the weekend.

Thanks

James

Outline:

Iraq situation bad: Iraqis very bad, Iran/Syria bad too, Saudis good
Important to adjust course: boss has always adjusted, will keep doing so, change of course needed – 360 degree turn imminent
Give military whatever (it’s ordered to) ask for
Last big push: retreat bad idea (cite Abizait) – move forward – sure victory
Prevent civil war: Christian duty – (avoid white mens "burden")
New four point strategy:

• more troops to Baghdad: 20,000 for starters (check with McCain, don’t cite Abizait on this)
• regional cooperation: big inclusive Iraqi neighbors conference – Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan will attend, (Olmert too if still available, otherwise Bibi)
• no neocon democracy ideas: national reconciliation, unity government needed, Maliki too partisan, Allawi proven leader
• Congress to cough up more money: build Allawi militia
Big victory party next June (Friedman to provide actual date and invitations)

(link)

Posted by b on November 16, 2006 at 12:09 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Nicely done, Berhard. You got it just right.

Posted by: Lurch | Nov 16 2006 12:28 utc | 1

If this is what James Baker has in mind, it may not necessarily be a bad approach. Even though the Guardian article talks about a “victory strategy”, it all depends on how victory is defined. If JB’s victory plan includes pacifying the insurgency (which it does not seem to according to the Guardian), its not ready for prime-time.
also, hopefully JB is not just trying to buy time for the Repubs to re-group. Its going to take some time to engage the regional players (Syria, Iran, Turkey, …) in pursuit of a solution.
If we are lucky, JB’s approach could be consistent with an eventual withdrawal of some form.
Maybe I am being too positive or maybe I’m the guy who owns the Brooklyn Bridge. We’ll just have to wach this out.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 16 2006 13:38 utc | 2

Daddy gave me a country to play with, and I broke two.
Now Uncle JB is mad at me…
-GWB

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 16 2006 13:39 utc | 3

Is this a joke? FOX NEWS INTERNAL MEMO: “Be On The Lookout For Any Statements From The Iraqi Insurgents…Thrilled At The Prospect Of A Dem Controlled Congress”
You may be right about Bush/Baker (the war makers) ‘buying time’ jbc…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 16 2006 13:48 utc | 4

Recommended Nir Rosen Anatomy of a Civil War – Iraq’s descent into chaos
Very long – you may want to restrict yourself to the last 10 graphs which hold his conclusions.

In an attempt to limit Muqtada’s power and appease Sunnis, the Americans pressured Prime Minister Ibrahim al Jaafari to step down. He was replaced in May 2006 by Nuri al Maliki, his close friend, but American and British bullying cost them the few Shia allies they had and only convinced Iraq’s Shias that Americans were playing a game of divide and conquer. The debate over Jaafari was framed as Kurds and Sunnis competing with Shias for power. It was one more sectarian battle, fought this time inside the Green Zone. But it was too late for that game because the Americans had long since lost the Sunnis and were continuing to alienate them with daily killings and their protecting with force the Shia-dominated order that they created in April 2003. This American blunder has only pushed Iraq closer to Iran and Syria.
Nuri al Maliki is ideologically at least as extreme as Jaafari, and as committed to preserving the new order. He has already threatened to use “maximum force” against “terrorists,” the code word for Sunnis. Even if Maliki was committed to a national unity government and nonsectarian security forces, and even if the Americans tried to reverse the sectarian trend in Iraq, it is too late.
…

Posted by: b | Nov 16 2006 14:57 utc | 5

Laura Rozen in LA Times: Unleash the Shiites?

AS SECTARIAN violence rises in Iraq and the White House comes under increasing pressure to revamp its strategy there, a debate is emerging inside the Bush administration: Should the U.S. abandon its efforts to act as a neutral referee in the ongoing civil war and, instead, throw its lot in with the Shiites?
A U.S. tilt toward the Shiites is a risky strategy, one that could further alienate Iraq’s Sunni neighbors and that could backfire by driving its Sunni population into common cause with foreign jihadists and Al Qaeda cells. But elements of the administration, including some members of the intelligence community, believe that such a tilt could lead to stability more quickly than the current policy of trying to police the ongoing sectarian conflict evenhandedly, with little success and at great cost.
…
To do so would be a reversal of Washington’s strategy over the last two years of trying to coax the Sunnis into the political process, an effort led by U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad. It also would discount some U.S. military commanders’ concerns that the Al Mahdi army, a Shiite militia loyal to the radical cleric Muqtada Sadr, poses as great a threat to American interests as that presented by the Sunni insurgency centered in western Iraq’s Al Anbar province.
So what’s the logic behind the idea of “unleashing the Shiites”? It’s the path of least resistance, according to its supporters, and it could help accelerate one side actually winning Iraq’s sectarian conflict, thereby shortening the conflict, while reducing some of the critical security concerns driving Shiites to mobilize their own militias in the first place.

Hmmm – when did Khalizad (a Sunni) announced he would leave his position?
If the US takes sides in the civil war on the Shia side, the Saudis will be VERY pissed. And they do have the money and the strings to pull …

Posted by: b | Nov 16 2006 15:11 utc | 6

@JB-cool – the plan is dumb as it doesn’t change anything – 20,000 more troops (not sustainable for more than a few month) will make no difference – it’s a “more of the same” approach. It is also not Bakers original plan or his group’s plan, but he can not position himself against Bush, that would taking the Dem position on the issue, so the only choice he has is to support whatever Bush comes up with. Essentialy he has been had by junior …

Posted by: b | Nov 16 2006 15:15 utc | 7

After reading b #7
Here’s a remix:
Daddy gave me a country to play with, and I broke two.
Now Uncle JB is mad at me… And I don’t care.
-GWB
Hey, I’ma DJ now!…lol

Posted by: Anonymous | Nov 16 2006 15:44 utc | 8

Tilt toward the Shiites…hmmm,so its going to be “Iraqi shiites good; Iranian shiites bad.” Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Posted by: Maxcrat | Nov 16 2006 16:25 utc | 9

one possible approach to Iraq would be to work out a deal with Iran & Syria whereby an Arab/Muslim peace-keeping force is brought into Iraq to restore security in Anwar province & Baghdad. Their operations would be limited to just Aanwar province & Baghdad.
for the deal to work, it must be premised on USA withdrawal. Also, the Syrians would have to be a major component of the Arab/Muslim peace-keeping force. And Iran would be a silent partner but still very involved. USA would fund the peace-keeping force.
another pre-requisite would be for all the warring factions in Iraq to agree to begin negotiations.
With the right incentives, this is a deal that Iran & Syria might consider from the new management – JB/Papa Bush 41/Gates.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 16 2006 16:29 utc | 10

The current possibilities in Iraq are either bad or really bad. The four point plan is a drop in the bucket.
If a stable Iraq is in the National Interest of the USA, it requires real sacrifice by all Americans; the draft, 500,000 American boys and girls in Iraq, exorbitant taxes on the wealthy, Arab League troops, and a set deadline for the last Christian troops to get out of Iraq.

Posted by: Jim S | Nov 16 2006 17:34 utc | 11

Next year, we’ll be talking about James Baker, Take Two. Only this time, the Democrats will be blamed as well as the Chimp, since they’ll go along with this nonsense.

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Nov 16 2006 18:29 utc | 12

chris floyd: Bush’s “New” Iraq Strategy Revealed: More Troops, More War

So that is the plan. This is Bush’s answer to the American people’s obvious, overwhelming desire for ending the war in Iraq. He is going to spit in America’s face. He is going to tell the American people to go to hell, or perhaps borrowing the language that Dick Cheney used in the United States Senate, to go fuck themselves. He is going to say: let your sons and daughters die, you worthless peons: I will never admit I was wrong.

so much for the lame duck …erm lame dick theory

Posted by: b real | Nov 16 2006 19:16 utc | 13

The piano has been drinking…and dubya, too?
(saw this on Wolcott’s blog, btw, but it’s from a UK source.)
Rumours persist here (and I have heard them repeated at a very senior level in the UK, too) that Bush has actually resumed drinking; I throw this into the mix not to sensationalise, but because I have now heard the rumour repeated at a sufficiently high level that I believe we must face the possibility that it might be true.

Posted by: fauxreal | Nov 16 2006 21:18 utc | 14

Will the Dems be suckered into taking the rap for becoming an accessory to Iraq if things stay the same or get worse by 2008 ?
Its a huge risk for Baker/Bush-family & the Repubs to pursue such a strategy. Because if it fails, the Repubs will pay a massive price at the polls.
The fact is that as 2008 looms, if things do not improve substansively, pretty much every candidate (Dem or Repub) will be calling for a withdrawal from Iraq.
It may even be to the Dems advantage to sustain a sense of party discipline on both sides for as long as possible. Of course with the Dems posturing as reluctant/sceptical partners to the Bush/Baker plan, whatever it is.
Once this picture is established in the public mind, the Dems renounce it as a loser and position themselves against Bush’s Iraq policy before the inevitable Repub jail-break.
for whatever its worth, a bipartisan approach to the Iraq mess is probably the most humane way to end this tragedy. But sadly, it may be just too much to hope for.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 17 2006 5:22 utc | 15

Col. Pat Lang says:

If the democrats accept Bush’s last throw of the dice in the big push, then they will own a piece of his war by 2008. pl

yep

Posted by: b | Nov 17 2006 5:23 utc | 16

How do you say: “Stay the Course” without saying “Stay the Course”?
Just a little over a month til we know for sure.

Posted by: pb | Nov 17 2006 5:35 utc | 17

on the home front, hearings & investigations on the Hill will reap big reward for the Dems in 2008. Regardless of what happens in Iraq.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 17 2006 6:14 utc | 18

How?
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a
Tall man’ll be over his head, we’re
Waist deep in the Big Muddy!
And the big fool says to push on!
Words and music by Pete Seeger (1967)

Posted by: catlady | Nov 17 2006 6:17 utc | 19

But there may not be any good solutions, and Baker’s real goal is to forge a bipartisan consensus at all costs, the people close to him and the group say.
“It is not about new ideas. It is about … ideas that can be supported across the political spectrum,” said one person intimately involved with the group’s work.
He and others spoke on condition of anonymity because Baker and Hamilton have demanded an end to media leaks about the group’s deliberations.

James Baker may face his toughest challenge in Iraq
(I love the reporters f*** you in the last cited sentence)

Posted by: b | Nov 17 2006 13:06 utc | 20

ideas that can be supported across the political spectrum = handing tar baby to Dems. So much for being Commander in Chief during war. There’s blame to spread around before 2008.

Posted by: lonesomeG | Nov 17 2006 15:06 utc | 21

Does anyone seriously believe theres any way the Dems are going to fall for a setup by JB’ Iraq Study group ?
If the Repubs think so, they must be truly desperate.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Nov 17 2006 23:07 utc | 22

Back to Main