Plan B in Iraq – Moon of Alabama

March 5, 2007

Plan B in Iraq

At the Washington Post Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks are fretting about Bush not having Plan B for Iraq.

During a White House meeting last week, a group of governors asked President Bush and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about their backup plan for Iraq. What would the administration do if its new strategy didn’t work?

The conclusion they took away, the governors later said, was that there is no Plan B.

Of course there is Plan B. Abort the Maliki goverment and start over with Allawi.

But be careful of adverse reactions:

Common side effects associated with the use of Plan B^® included nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, tiredness, diarrhea, dizziness, torture pain, head-shots, and genocide charges.

Posted by b on March 5, 2007 at 20:47 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Luttwak in Harpers: Dead End – Counterinsurgency warfare as military malpractice

[The decision to not govern] reflects another kind of politics, manifest in the ambivalence of a United States government that is willing to fight wars, that is willing to start wars because of future threats, that is willing to conquer territory or even entire countries, and yet is unwilling to govern what it conquers, even for a few years. Consequently, for all the real talent manifest in the writing of FM 3-24 DRAFT, its prescriptions are in the end of little or no use and amount to a kind of malpractice. All its best methods, all its clever tactics, all the treasure and blood that the United States has been willing to expend, cannot overcome the crippling ambivalence of occupiers who refuse to govern, and their principled and inevitable refusal to out-terrorize the insurgents, the necessary and sufficient condition of a tranquil occupation.

Posted by: b | Mar 5 2007 22:14 utc | 1

Paul Krugman (liberated) gets at this same “inability to govern” in the U.S. as well via Walter Reed and New Orleans.
Because the Bushies are such ideologues (or crooks — and really both) they do not think governing is important…and private industry should control all of our lives. I do not understand why Americans elect assholes who think that govt doesn’t work who then create a governing situation that doesn’t work. d’oh, Homer the voter.
I feel like I’m rubber necking the apocalypse.

Posted by: fauxreal | Mar 5 2007 23:39 utc | 2

Shorter Luttwak: Americans are just too darn nice and principled to run a proper colonial occupation and the Iraqis are too darned corrupt, lazy, violent and stupid to accept the gift of freedom we offer them.

Posted by: ran | Mar 6 2007 2:50 utc | 3

“rubber necking the apocalypse” – well said, fauxreal.

Posted by: conchita | Mar 6 2007 3:21 utc | 4

i’m surprised harper’s printed that. gross.

Posted by: annie | Mar 6 2007 3:47 utc | 5

It’s official,
the troops did get spat upon when they returned –
– by the Republican President, Senate, and House.

Posted by: citizen | Mar 6 2007 5:47 utc | 6

badger’s saturday post..
The reporter then recites the contents of the announcement made Friday by a spokesman for Allawi’s group, about the political and security collapse and the threat of Allawi’s group exiting the government and the current political process. Here’s the new part of what he reports:

And Najafi said the question of the Iraqi List staying in the current government is conditional on agreement to its demands, represented by: revision of the political process in its entirety, changing the method of administering the Iraqi state, freezing the constitution, and dissolving parliament.

Posted by: annie | Mar 6 2007 9:27 utc | 7

So,
the government was designed to last just long enough
to sign the Oil Law.

Posted by: citizen | Mar 6 2007 15:29 utc | 8

citizen
He (Allawi) continues to lead his Iraqi National Accord’s party in the new Assembly, though its support was weak during legislative elections, and only polled 14 per cent of the vote.
Is he needed for the present government to remain in power? Would the Shia’s give in to this demand rather than share power with those horrid Sunnis?
ya know, they probably would.

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 6 2007 15:51 utc | 9

Allawi alrady failed as Plan B back in January 2005. The attempt to resurrect him in the wake of the December 2005 elections was the failure of Plan D. The Maliki government is already Plan E, and, to be frank, the US is stuck with him.
I simply don’t understand why anyone thinks there is even a remote chance of Allawi making a comeback – his electoral list, which was already weak, has splintered, and, with the exception of the US, everyone seems to hate him; he is the one person alive that the rest of the Iraqi polity can be reliably expected to put aside their differences on to unite in a “let’s see who can kill him first” competition – this is the principle reason why he doesn’t actually spend any time in Iraq anymore, with the exception of the odd sneak into the Barzani-controlled region of Kurdistan for a meet with Khalilzad now and then. Considering that Maliki is supposedly heading a National Unity government that comprises just about everyone, threatening to withdraw what’s left of the Iraqiya list ….unless….is just a redundant piece of posturing.
The idea that the US will resurrect Allawi as plan F has surfaced a few times now; the only reason that this bit of propaganda gets catapulted is that the US, for some unfathomable reason, believes that it’s a way of leveraging concessions from Maliki. It doesn’t seem to have been particularly successful thus far.
At any rate the real fun will begin next week when the Sadrists come out of their self-imposed Arbaeen Purdah.

Posted by: dan | Mar 6 2007 16:08 utc | 10

DoS
The Allawi list polled 8% in the December 2005 elections – and this was on the back of an heroic vote-buying exercise in Jordan; the conventional US media-administration wisdom at the time was that he would get at least 20%, and in tandem with an improved INC electoral showing of 5-10%, would be in a position to return as PM. To be fair, his list did get 14% in the January 2005 election.
There was a hilarious Guardian piece on it by Gaith Abdel Ahad (?).
When Allawi tried to visit Najaf during the election in December 2005 he had to flee, pursued by a stone and shoe throwing crowd; if he tried to repeat the visit today, he’d probably just get himself and his Blackwater security detail killed.

Posted by: dan | Mar 6 2007 16:15 utc | 11

Report: Maliki ‘cabinet reshuffle’ to include arrests of up to 100

Iraq’s prime minister said Saturday he will reshuffle his Cabinet within two weeks and pursue criminal charges against political figures linked to extremists as a sign of his government’s resolve to restore stability during the U.S.-led security crackdown in Baghdad.
…
The prime minister did not say how many politicians and officials might be targeted for formal investigation, an Iraqi legal step that corresponds to a grand jury probe…
But five senior Iraqis – two of them generals and three from Shiite and Sunni parties – have told the AP that up to 100 prominent figures could face legal proceedings.

If you have a parlamantary minority, just arrest the majority and the problem is solved. Doesn’t Iraq has immunity for parliamentarians?

Posted by: b | Mar 6 2007 16:26 utc | 12

damn, this is truly weird. faux has the money quote, again.

Posted by: annie | Mar 6 2007 16:59 utc | 13

Ot, but speaking of rubber necking, been watching Cspan’s coverage of US attorneys hearing ON THE FIRING AND INTIMIDATION OF
here..
It’s been riveting, explosive testimony even…
veiled, threats, and chilling effect on them the most so far has been testimony given by Presidentially appointed US attorney Iglesias received call AT HOME from Sen. Pete Domenici (r) He (Domenici), asked if cases would be filed before November. Iglesias said no, and Domenici said, “I’m sorry to hear that,” and then Domenici hung up. Iglesias SAID HE FELT SICK AFTERWARDS. And that he had never ever received a call at home from and Senator ever.
This just in….Libby Guilty on Count 1 (Obst of justice)!

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 6 2007 17:24 utc | 14

Looks like no prlamentarian wants to go to jail. Maybe all of those 263 missing the show assume Maliki (the U.S.) is looking for them?
Parliament fails to meet due too many no-shows

Iraq’s parliament failed to reconvene as scheduled Tuesday because so few members showed up after the month’s recess.
Only about a dozen of the 275 members of parliament appeared at the Green Zone parliament building. Officials said the assembly would not try to meet again until sometime next week.
The legislature has several urgent items to consider including the oil law, constitutional review and changes in regulations that effectively bar many Sunnis from government jobs.

Posted by: b | Mar 6 2007 20:30 utc | 15

b: Looks like no parliamentarian wants to go to jail.
Cole says they all live in London.
What would happen if they met and passed the Bush Oil bill? Would the rest of the world go along with the ridiculous farce, the patent theft of Iraqi Oil assets?
I bet they would.
They all deplore the bully, but will eagerly line up for a share of the spoils. Stand on Iraqi bodies to get theirs.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Mar 7 2007 1:25 utc | 16

i would imagine any politician passing that (oil) legislation would be dead meat. wtf, the cabinet just passed the first hurdle and now they are replacing 10 members of the cabinet. wonder what kind of breakdown thats all about? yeah , right. allawi is the privatization man alright. democracy squat. this is so much total bs.
the latest market bombing is so atrocious, not to make light at all of the 100plus shites that got killed today but the market bombing in the antique books street, apparently many iraqis favorite place in baghdad. the response on the iraqi blogs has been just shock.
this is never going to end. i hate this i just hate it, i can hardly write anything. it just gags me.
i’m so disgusted w/the total inability of the dems to make any difference in this war except make this huge squak about supporting our wounded troops while not even f’ing mentioning what our damn policies are doing to the families in iraq, many of the sunni neighborhoods relying on one hr a day of electricity, kids spending 24/7 indoors, just getting food or any supplies is a life threatening experience and these are the ones who have it easy, the ones who aren’t targets , yet. getting out of the country, a visa to any neighboring country practically impossible. its so fucked w/no end in sight.
sorry, stupid infantile rant. jus slainin’ why i have nuthin to say anymore.
oh yeah, obama sucking up to aipac this week, that went over like a lead brick.

Posted by: annie | Mar 7 2007 7:25 utc | 17

Ok, it is official now: 150,000 troops (plus 100,000 mercinaries) – and I haven’t catched this skimming the US press: At least 110 pilgrims die in suicide attacks as US admits extra 7,000 troops may go to Iraq

The US could send an extra 7,000 troops to implement President George Bush’s controversial Iraqi security plan, it emerged last night as the country suffered one of its worst recent days of bloodshed when at least 110 Shia Muslim pilgrims were killed and scores more injured. Most died in Hilla, south of Baghdad, in a twin suicide bombing blamed on Sunni extremists.
Gordon England, deputy secretary of defence, revealed that army commanders were requesting reinforcements beyond the 21,500 personnel already earmarked for the so-called “surge” into the capital.
“At this point, our expectation is the number of … troops could go above 21,500 by about 4,000, maybe as many as 7,000,” the official told the House of Representatives Budget committee in Washington.
The news that yet more men are likely to be joining the nearly 140,000 US troops already serving in Iraq came as Mr Bush insisted there were “encouraging signs” that his strategy was working. On Monday US forces suffered their deadliest losses in nearly a month – when nine soldiers were killed in explosions in Sunni areas north of Baghdad, bringing total casualties since March 2003 to at least 3,185.

Posted by: b | Mar 7 2007 8:49 utc | 18

Sunnis will not be persuaded that Iran is their real enemy

all disputes in the Middle East have suddenly turned into sectarian conflicts and Iran is portrayed as the main culprit. Nothing now seems comprehensible to the western media and political establishments unless seen through the prism of Iranian ambitions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and even more distant conflicts such as Somalia and Darfur. Opponents of Iran and of whomever Iran is thought to support in the region no longer want us to see US interventions as the main issue – let alone the primary cause of the mayhem enveloping the entire Middle East.
…
Of all the hot spots in the region, Iraq is the only place where sectarian tension has tipped over into bloody conflict. But that only happened in the aftermath of the invasion. The US and Britain, having failed to come up with any evidence to justify their aggression, claimed that their aim was to rescue the Shia majority from Saddam’s Sunni regime. In fact, there is no census evidence showing the Shia as a majority nor was there any credibility to the claim that Saddam’s regime was Sunni. It was secular and nationalist, and the ruling Ba’ath party was believed to have more Shias in its ranks than Sunnis. Thirty-two of the 52 names on the US most-wanted list were Shias, and Saddam punished whoever rose against his regime, irrespective of religion or ethnicity.
…

Posted by: b | Mar 7 2007 9:17 utc | 19

Yes, faux real, I was just thinking, in a way the US Gvmt. doesn’t govern the US! Of course I myself don’t have an accurate picture of US State(s) – Fed. Gov relations or intertwinings, so may be over the top.
I followed a few of Booted Bremer’s efforts in areas that interested me … health seemed to be a matter of pure ‘re-construction’ or ‘building’ new clinics, and getting new equipment, upsetting and bizarre, as the primary needs were, and are, electricity, clean water, vaccines (gulp – I can’t imagine the present coverage), medication, doctor’s + other salaries, not to mention food rations for mothers/babies thru some kind of ‘well baby’ scheme. Open heart surgery should not be a priority, and anyway could have been done elsewhere. So, in this area the US acted in a ‘flat earth’, as if Iraq was a pale copy of the US, with its infrastructure in place, and proper (pre-Bush) public health organisms, the money to buy what was needed…As far as I could see, the efforts were run independent of any medical, public health, US expertise; the people deciding it, doing it, overseeing it etc. were Republican wannabees, Iraqis on the take, and ignorant soldiers, as the competent Iraqis involved were not consulted to any effect. I prefer no to think about what Iraqi teeth look like today…
Given all that it is difficult not to conclude it was done on purpose, and not just the usual stupidity. Yet, part of the results are due to the fractioning of US society and US Gvmt, the fact that these ‘wars’ are instigated and run by a small corporate-military elite, independently of the american people; run with arms, dollars, and a volunteer army, completely disconnected from the American people and their ‘usual’ institutions or experts. What health expert was sent to Iraq? What health authorities went to Iraq? What institution tried to have some input? Was it considered that FDA rules or procedures might apply in Iraq? What about bird flu? … No; none (barring exceptions I don’t know about). Did the US ask the WHO to advise? Errr…
Many just cheer Bush or blame him and his band of neo-cons for spending money uselessly or launching illegal wars. It is a US – USA affair, internet or football type team cheering. (Present board members excepted of course.)

Posted by: Noirette | Mar 8 2007 16:14 utc | 20

Plan A – a puppet Gvmt, very strong bases, control thru arms, and perpetual low-level but murderous warfare against the people on the ground is working out just fine.
No need for plan B. US and Iraqi gangsters will suck the country dry, while posturing for the mainstream media.
It will take much money (impoverishment of US citizens), a good supply of macho types, soldiers and contractors, and the territory will remain ‘badlands’ for the next 20 years – rife with ‘insurgents’, ‘terrorists’. One the one hand, there will be the bases, civilization, safe roads, congenial places, helicops to guard, privileges, good food. Outside, a disorderly savage world, populated by people who can’t manage themselves, are primitive, somehow disgusting, unpredictable enemies, or just weird, Muslims!
A large scale experiment in modern take over.
Killing the Indians was easy, dealing with the Pals has been slow…but these are long term projects and should be judged in that light.
Saddam’s Palace, Before and After:
maps o’ war

Posted by: Noirette | Mar 8 2007 16:52 utc | 21

Back to Main