present tense future – for slothrop

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Dec 15 2006 22:52 utc | 3

A Plan for Success in Iraq
By Frederick W. Kagan
Posted: Thursday, December 14, 2006
Publication Date: December 14, 2006
Executive Summary
* Victory is still an option in Iraq. America, a country of 300 million people with a GDP of $12 trillion, and more than one million soldiers and marines can regain control of Iraq, a state the size of California with a population of 25 million and a GDP under $100 billion.

We have not yet bled the United States dry and may yet build a successful occupation on the model of Gaza and the West Bank in Iraq.

Victory in Iraq is vital to Americas security. Defeat will lead to regional conflict, humanitarian catastrophe, and increased global terrorism.

Israel’s security, given its goals of full expropriation of Palestinian land and complete expulsion of Palestinian people, depends upon the utter subjugation or destruction of as many of the surrounding nations as possible, using surrogate American forces until they are exhausted.

Iraq has reached a critical point. The strategy of relying on a political process to eliminate the insurgency has failed. Rising sectarian violence threatens to break America’s will to fight. This violence will destroy the Iraqi government, armed forces, and people if it is not rapidly controlled.

American forces are very nearly exhausted now, so a final surge must be made to use every last drop of their blood to our benefit.

Victory in Iraq is still possible at an acceptable level of effort. We must adopt a new approach to the war and implement it quickly and decisively.

The US Armed Forces are not yet in open revolt. We can use them further before this is no longer the case.

Three courses of action have been proposed. All will fail.
o Withdraw immediately. This approach will lead to immediate defeat. The Iraqi Security Forces are entirely dependent upon American support to survive and function. If U.S. forces withdraw now, they will collapse and Iraq will descend into total civil war that will rapidly spread throughout the region.

There is a slight danger that some few American politicians may yet be influenced by their constituents’ desire for an end to what they see as a futile, senseless war that cannot possibly benefit them. This option is unacceptable out of hand.

o Engage Iraq’s neighbors. This approach will fail. The basic causes of violence and sources of manpower and resources for the warring sides come from within Iraq. Iraq’s neighbors are encouraging the violence, but they cannot stop it.

As long as we can prevent this from happening it has no chance of success. The opposition to our occupation is 100% Iraqi, and if we can humiliate and pressure the Iraqi resistance fighters sufficiently within Iraq, we may be able to draw Iraq’s neighbors into the conflict as well.

o Increase embedded trainers dramatically. This approach cannot succeed rapidly enough to prevent defeat. Removing U.S. forces from patrolling neighborhoods to embed them as trainers will lead to an immediate rise in violence. This rise in violence will destroy America’s remaining will to fight, and escalate the cycle of sectarian violence in Iraq beyond anything an Iraqi army could bring under control.

The most brutal sort of destruction, as at Jenin and at Fallujah, can only be entrusted to American trops to carry out in Iraq. Iraqi troops will never wreck such damage on fellow Iraqis.

We must act now to restore security and stability to Baghdad. We and the enemy have identified it as the decisive point.

Death and devastation must be sown in Baghdad, as at Fallujah. If we cannot demonstrate a willingness to cast aside all legal convention and the common calls of humanity we cannot hope to intimidate the obviously numerically superior force of a nation rising up in resistance to its continued occupation.

There is a way to do this.
o We must change our focus from training Iraqi soldiers to securing the Iraqi population and containing the rising violence. Securing the population has never been the primary mission of the U.S. military effort in Iraq, and now it must become the first priority.

Overwhelming death and devastation must be meted out to those who are opposing us.

o We must send more American combat forces into Iraq and especially into Baghdad to support this operation. A surge of seven Army brigades and Marine regiments to support clear-and-hold operations starting in the Spring of 2007 is necessary, possible, and will be sufficient.

We need more troops on the ground in Iraq. Seven brigades is the most we can possibly conjure so it will have to be enough.

o These forces, partnered with Iraqi units, will clear critical Sunni and mixed Sunni-Shi’a neighborhoods, primarily on the west side of the city.

These forces will raze the west side of the city.

o After the neighborhoods have been cleared, U.S. soldiers and marines, again partnered with Iraqis, will remain behind to maintain security.

Once the west side is depopulated, US troops will dig in to keep it that way.

o As security is established, reconstruction aid will help to reestablish normal life and, working through Iraqi officials, will strengthen Iraqi local government

We will then buy local “opposition” forces, along the lines of the al Fatah model, floating US T-bills, as always, to do so.

This approach requires a national commitment to victory in Iraq:
o The ground forces must accept longer tours for several years. National Guard units will have to accept increased deployments during this period.

We must fully exploit the new American slave warrior class before they rise in opposition to us.

o Equipment shortages must be overcome by transferring equipment from non-deploying active duty, National Guard, and reserve units to those about to deploy. Military industry must be mobilized to provide replacement equipment sets urgently.

We can strip whatever men and materiel remain in the continental US to accomplish our aims.

o The president must request a dramatic increase in reconstruction aid for Iraq. Responsibility and accountability for reconstruction must be assigned to established agencies. The president must insist upon the completion of reconstruction projects. The president should also request a dramatic increase in CERP funds.

We must shore up the relationship between Neocon strategists and the American Wehrmacht itself with more money, dispursed both as tradional contracts for “goods and services” and as outright bribes. We must obviously keep administration of such funds in the hands of “trusted” parties, and make slush funds available to buy chaos on demand from local death squads.

o The president must request a substantial increase in ground forces end strength. This increase is vital to sustaining the morale of the combat forces by ensuring that relief is on the way. The president must issue a personal call for young Americans to volunteer to fight in the decisive conflict of this age.

We must boldly confront those forces representing American interests in this matter, a massive propaganda campaign is in order.

Failure in Iraq today will require far greater sacrifices tomorrow in far more desperate circumstances.

Israel’s continuing policies of expulsion and expropriaton toward the Palestinians will continue to stir great opposition throughout the region so we must use America’s resources to our greatest advantage before they are ultimately forced to withdraw into enclaves in the occupied territories in Iraq.

Committing to victory now will demonstrate America’s strength to our friends and enemies around the world.

Executing this plan will demonstrate Neocon dominance of America and our ability to drain the cup of our enemies to the dregs, that is to all the world’s peoples.

Frederick W. Kagan is a resident scholar at AEI.

And one of a triumvirate of Kagans at the Project for a New American (sic) Century.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Dec 16 2006 3:03 utc | 5

It’s interesting that Odierno is put back in Iraq as #2 (operational commander) right before Gates takes over the DoD. A strange moment to make changes at that level.
He’s been Condi’s ‘military adviser’ since he left his command of the 4th infantry. That makes me suspect he’s one of Cheney’s boys. I wonder what Gates is going to do with him? That might be edifying.

Posted by: Dick Durata | Dec 16 2006 4:12 utc | 7

This is exactly the conclusion I have drawn. I think that Turki believed the ISG would change things, and when it became clear that it wouldn’t make a bit of difference, and that the bombing was inevitable, and that Bandar, his arch-rival, had assured Cheney (perhaps on the recent visit to SA — discussions too sensitive to have over any communication channel at all, mandating the extraordinary measure of a VP paying an in-person visit on a mission that only a Secretary of State should have undertaken) that SA would stand by and that they WANT the US to bomb Iran (recall that Turki was visibly NOT present during that visit). Then put this together with:
– Israel revealing its nuclear cards (Translation: Iran, don’t even think of retaliating by bombing us, we have the means to wipe you out)
– Dear Leader “listening” and then “postponing” a decision until after the holidays (yeah right. Since when did he ever seek out a wide range of views? It is so patently implausible that it has to be an act.) I feel that is all a front to make it appear as if he hasn’t already decided. In fact he knows, in my view, that over the holidays events will transpire that will simply “leave him no choice” but to respond by bombing Iran. Whatever the events that have been slated to be put into motion may be.
The other day it hit me with crystal clarity — that in the neocon world view, where reality has no role, there is no choice but to finish the job and take down the regime in iran. Because if you don’t, as the poster above says, you end up with Iran powerful enough to perpetually and forever and ever mess up Iraq, and with Iran also stirring the pot in Lebanon and elsewhere. When Rice signalled that they are not willing to consider talking to Iran, that was another nail in the coffin.
And “The Way Forward…” *shuddder.*
I hope to God I am proven to be a paranoid nutcase, but this is kind of where my instincts over the past two days have been taking me. I would place my bets on the week between Christmas and New Year’s.

Posted by: Bea | Dec 16 2006 5:41 utc | 9

“I would place my bets on the week between Christmas and New Year’s.”
If so, be prepared to pay 10 bucks a gallon for gas in January.

Posted by: pb | Dec 16 2006 6:27 utc | 11

US roots in Iraq too deep to pull
By Michael Schwartz

… the ISG report is not an “exit strategy”; it is a new plan for achieving the Bush administration’s imperial goals in the Middle East.
…
Besides explicitly stating that withdrawal is a terrible idea – “our leaving would make [the situation] worse” – the ISG report is built around the idea that the US will remain in Iraq for a very long time.
To put it bluntly, the ISG is not calling on the Bush administration to abandon its goal of creating a client regime that was supposed to be the key to establishing the US as the dominant power in the Middle East. Quite the contrary. As its report states: “We agree with the goal of US policy in Iraq.” If you ignore the text sprinkled with sugar-coated words like “representative government”, the report essentially demands that the Iraqi government pursue policies shaped to serve “America’s interest and values in the years ahead”.
…
the US military entered Iraq with plans already in hand to construct and settle into at least four massive military bases that would become nerve centers for the US’s military presence in the “arc of instability” extending from Central Asia all the way into Africa – an “arc” that just happened to contain the bulk of the world’s exportable oil.
The original plan included wresting control of Iraqi oil from Saddam’s hostile Ba’athist government and delivering it into the hands of the large oil companies through the privatization of new oil fields and various other special agreements. It was hoped that privatized Iraqi oil might then break the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries’ hold on the global oil spigot. In the Iraq of the Bush administration’s dreams, the US would be the key player in determining both the amount of oil pumped and the favored destinations for it. (This ambition was implicitly seconded by the ISG when it recommended that the US “should assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise”.)
All of this, of course, was contingent on establishing an Iraqi government that would be a junior partner in American Middle Eastern policy; that, under the rule of an Ahmed Chalabi or Iyad Allawi, would, for instance, be guaranteed to support administration campaigns against Iran and Syria. Bush administration officials have repeatedly underscored this urge, even in the present circumstances, by attempting, however ineffectively, to limit the ties of the present Shi’ite-dominated Iraqi government to Iran.

Which is why SA might go along with the invasion in the first place.

… Most striking is the report’s 21st (of 79) recommendations, aimed at describing what the US should do if the Iraqis failed to satisfactorily fulfill the many tasks that the ISG has set for them.

If the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military or economic support for the Iraqi government.

This could be interpreted as a threat that the US will withdraw – and the mainstream media have chosen to interpret it just that way. But why then did Baker and his colleagues not word this statement differently? (“… the United States should reduce, and ultimately withdraw, its forces from Iraq.”) The phrase “reduce its political, military or economic support for the Iraqi government” is probably better interpreted literally: that if that government fails to satisfy ISG demands, the US should transfer its “political, military or economic support” to a new leadership within Iraq that it feels would be more capable of making “substantial progress toward” the milestones it has set.
In other words, this passage is more likely a threat of a coup d’etat than a withdrawal strategy – a threat that the facade of democracy would be stripped away and a “strong man” (or a government of “national salvation”) installed, one that the Bush administration or the ISG believes could bring the Sunni rebellion to heel.

Bush pushes Maliki towards “reconciliation” and when he fails — i.e, is shown to be “not a strong leader” — he will have to be replaced. And Iraq will only be “stabilized” when Iran is made to “stop interfering/posing a threat, etc.”
Ambassador Turki al-Faisal can’t dissuade Cheney from “stay the course”, i.e. continue on with the plan for regime change in Iran, and resigns. Is King Abdullah of SA listening to his NSA Bandar Bush and depending on Cheney to protect his rule in SA via destabilizing Iran?
Is the attack on Iran coming sooner than we think?

Posted by: Hamburger | Dec 16 2006 13:54 utc | 13

Col Lang’s title on these AEI ideas is apt: Stalingrad on the Tigris?

Posted by: b | Dec 16 2006 20:08 utc | 15

jbc- I think you give too much credit to Baker and too little to Jr.’s obstinance. I think Jr. is afraid not to stay because he would have to admit he was wrong about this whole mess. He won’t do that unless he is forced to, imo. And last time I looked, Cheney was still vp, and still fighting over which side to arm…although Halliburton, obviously (see Iran nuclear and Jason Leopold via Global Research) has no problem arming both sides to make a big buck.
and anyway, it seems Baker/Hamilton just rephrased “stay the course.” as “find some side that will be our puppet.” good luck.

Posted by: fauxreal | Dec 16 2006 21:33 utc | 17

These guys are totally insane.
If I refer only to B’s post, this will create an ugly bloody mess unseen since quite some time. If I add to that the crazy talk of war on Iran, then this shit will make Napoleon III’s declaration of war against Prussia in 1870 like a triumph of rational and intelligent strategy and polcies.
A shame Barbara Tuchman is dead, she would have plenty to study here. And Jared Diamond clearly should update Collapse, with the present example of a society and its leadership and its elite willingly committing downright suicide.

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Dec 16 2006 23:46 utc | 19

Neocon Central (Weakly Standard edition): ‘We’re Going to Win’

Last Monday Bush was, at last, briefed on an actual plan for victory in Iraq, one that is likely to be implemented. Retired General Jack Keane, the former vice chief of staff of the Army, gave him a thumbnail sketch of it during a meeting of five outside experts at the White House. The president’s reaction, according to a senior adviser, was “very positive.” Authored by Keane and military expert Frederick W. Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, the plan (which can be read at aei.org/publication25292) is well thought-out and detailed, but fundamentally quite simple. It is based on the idea–all but indisputable at this point–that no political solution is possible in Iraq until security is established, starting in Baghdad. The reverse–a bid to forge reconciliation between majority Shia and minority Sunni–is a nonstarter in a political environment drenched in the blood of sectarian killings.
…
Before Bush announces his “new way forward” in Iraq in early January, he wants to be assured of two things. The first is that his plan can succeed. Initial evaluations of the Keane-Kagan plan at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the government have been positive. Alone among proposals for Iraq, the new Keane-Kagan strategy has a chance to succeed. Bush’s second concern is to avert an explosion of opposition on Capitol Hill. Because this plan offers a credible prospect of winning in Iraq, moderate Democrats and queasy Republicans, the White House thinks, will be inclined to stand back and let Bush give it a shot.
The sooner Bush orders the plan into action, the better chances are that next Christmas he’ll be telling White House guests that winning
in Iraq is not just a goal. It could actually be happening.

Posted by: b | Dec 17 2006 19:51 utc | 21

Initial evaluations of the Keane-Kagan plan at the Pentagon…government have been positive.

Not bloody likely, except in the civilian Pentagon.

Because this plan offers a credible prospect of winning in Iraq, moderate Democrats and queasy Republicans, the White House thinks, will be inclined to stand back…

Doesn’t pass even a careless sniff test for “credibility”. If moderate D’s and quesy R’s “stand back”, it will be for some other reason.

The sooner Bush orders the plan into action

i.e. Rush the new brigades to Iraq before the next Congress convenves, and Congress will be forced to live with it ’cause they won’t dare to cut off funds for troops already in the field.
Does Bush/ Cheney buy this stuff or is it only the WS sucking the usual fumes?

Posted by: small coke | Dec 17 2006 20:24 utc | 23

From the link I posted at #24:

Rice also said that the U.S. has committed “large resources” to reconstruction [in Lebanon] following the devastating Israeli offensive.
“We’ll, I think eventually head towards a billion dollars for reconstruction and redevelopment in Lebanon,” she said.

So… what kind of insane waste of expenditure of our money is this? We spend billions to give Israel weapons. They use the weapons to destroy a country. We then come in and offer billions to rebuild what they destroyed.
Can’t the mainstream media say something about this????

Posted by: Bea | Dec 18 2006 4:53 utc | 25

And and p.s. Add a few billions more to restock the weapons that were used in the war.

Posted by: Bea | Dec 18 2006 5:04 utc | 27