Iraq endgame

Iraq endgame

President George W Bush's 10 January 2007, speech announced the "endgame" for Iraq. His new strategy is intended to salvage American policy sharply undermined by rising violence in Baghdad and falling support in the United States.

By Harvey Sicherman for FPRI (25/01/07)


excerpt:


..The study group, the Democrats, and the opinion polls had all advocated an American "step back" from Iraq. In contrast, Bush decided to "step forward," necessary, he argued, so that the United States could "step back" at a later date, once Iraq seemed safely on the path to self-government and (mostly) self-defense. As new policies required new men, the president promptly announced replacements on the diplomatic and military levels. Most important was the ascension of General David Petraeus, a two-tour combat veteran and the Army's votary of counterinsurgency.

Bush's new tack was intended to focus US military and political efforts on the "three P's" and the "three C's," centered on Baghdad. But at this late date, could counterinsurgency work? And would the new resources suffice?

The road ahead is uphill on all fronts. These are the critical issues:

1. Surge, plus up or tumble down? The size and duration of actual American reinforcements remains to be seen. Some new troops have arrived but the surge, as some call it, or the "plus up" as DOD describes it, also depends on rotation, logistics and the change of command. Those whose power may be curtailed by the American plans will have every incentive to go for maximum gain now, a reason to expect a "plus up" of sectarian violence before the United States can bring the new policy to bear

2. A new Iraqi government? Doubts multiply whether the Maliki government can, in fact, do its part, especially if this requires a drastic reduction of Sadr's power on the ground. Bush has warned publicly and privately that Maliki must do serious co-option with the Sunnis, including the sharing of oil revenue. He consulted ostentatiously with Sadr's mortal enemy, al-Hakim, head of the SCIRI movement, among whose leading officials a replacement for Maliki might be found. Should Maliki fail, the United States would have to engineer a new government and very quickly, a tricky task even in better times

3. Regional support? Secretary of State Rice's efforts to restart, at least motion, if not movement, on the Israeli-Palestinian front gives cover to Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf Emirates to help in Iraq. The creation of an anti-Iranian bloc, however, will also test whether its members can free Lebanon and the Palestinians of Syrian and Iranian vetoes. Moreover, all the regional powers will be assessing the success or failure of the new US effort in Baghdad. And all the Middle East governments are adept at hedging bets

4. Co-option at home? Bush will face serious attempts by the Democrats and some Republicans to thwart his plans through political opposition and budget maneuvers. On the president's side, Senator McCain has risked his political future by endorsing a plan that falls short of the troop levels he sought. Senator Lieberman, a newly elected independent who owes little to the Democrats, offers Bush a critical swing vote in the Senate but may not be able to rally many others. The Democrats, however, risk the "cut and run" charge should they go too far in trying to hobble the commander-in-chief's prerogatives. Senator Clinton's attempt to justify a step down in Iraq so that the United States can step up in Afghanistan attempts to avoid this dilemma by arguing that Democrats can wage the war on terror more effectively where it counts


There is not much time for all of this to play out, and the "endgame" will be defined by fall 2007...cont'd

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=17167