STRATEGIC REDEPLOYMENT: How to Get Out of Iraq
02 October 2005 12:17 am by Taylor Marsh
STRATEGIC REDEPLOYMENT: How to Get Out of Iraq
In the absence of fresh ideas, the American
public has had to settle for a simplistic debate centered on a false choice
– should U.S. forces “stay the course” in Iraq or “cut and
run”? These extreme positions avoid the fundamental question the country
should debate: Is our government using all its powers effectively to defeat
our country's enemies? The answer to that question is a resounding no. The
key is focusing on Iraq in the broader context of the global security threats
the United States faces.>The United States needs to pursue a plan of
Strategic Redeployment. Strategic Redeployment is a threat-based strategy
to target our efforts against global terrorist networks and bring greater
stability to Iraq and its neighborhood. This approach will minimize the damage
to the United States in the short term, mitigate the drawbacks of our eventual
withdrawal from Iraq, and secure our interests in the long term. Strategic
Redeployment differs from other plans for what to do in Iraq by recognizing
that Iraq is now connected to a broader battle against global terrorist networks
— even though it was not before the Bush administration's invasion. Strategic
Redeployment also means re-engaging our allies, building a platform for multilateral
cooperation that counters the terrorist threats we face, rather than relying
on ad-hoc “coalitions of the willing.”Strategic Redeployment has four main components:
military realignment that restores a realistic deployment policy for our active
and reserve forces and moves troops to other hot spots in the struggle against
global terrorist networks or brings them home to rebuild; a global communications
campaign to counter misinformation and hateful ideologies; new regional diplomatic
initiatives; and smarter support for Iraq's renewal and reconstruction.STRATEGIC
REDEPLOYMENT: A Progressive Plan for Iraq and the Struggle Against Violent
Extremists
It's about time.
The Center for American Progress put it together and it comes at a time of
an ever widening leadership vacuum. It comes at a time when the Republicans
have fallen apart. Their leadership in a tailspin from which they may never
recover.
In an apparent bid to unify fractious Democrats behind
a consensus plan on Iraq, a think tank with strong links to the administration
of former President Bill Clinton has called for a two-year “strategic redeployment”
of U.S. forces there that would ensure their almost total withdrawal by January
2008. The plan, released by the Centre for American Progress (CAP), also calls
for Washington to begin withdrawing troops in January 2006, and completely withdraw
from Iraq's urban areas at the outset, leaving security in the hands of Iraqi
police, troops, and militias. By the end of 2006, according to the plan, 80,000
of the approximately 150,000 U.S. troops currently deployed in Iraq would be
withdrawn from the country, with all 46,000 National Guard and Reserve units
there demobilised and returned to the United States.
THINK
TANK ISSUES TWO-YEAR IRAQ EXIT PLAN
(tip to Juan
Cole)
“Fractious Democrats” is an understatement. So, without
further adieu, let me break it down. Much of what is below was taken verbatim whenever
possible. I urge you to read the short, ten page plan yourself.
The Center's SR talks about “arguing over a false choice.”
That is to say “to change course we must change the debate” and there
are three reasons the “debate is deficient”: lack of info on Iraq;
lack of presidential leadership; lack of a strong opposition.
Let's pause a moment on this one. Democrats who voted
for the war don't want to admit they were wrong. The ones who didn't vote for
the war, don't want to appear weak. The result has paralyzed the politicians.
Or, when suggestions have been made, they are just variations on a theme, Bush's
theme. What has happened is that Democrats have become stuck, unable to move,
or offer an argument for something new, bold and progressive. This must change
now or we'll be listening to Bush offer up a plan at his State
of the Union address in January that will lock us into hell for yet another
election cycle.
The reason the debate is so “narrow” is because we don't
have enough information on Iraq, so we're operating in a vacuum.
The information the American public
receives from military commanders in the field is inadequate, too often focused
on shoring up public support by presenting the rosiest news. The military has
even begun using Vietnam-era enemy body counts as a benchmark to demonstrate
progress. Without verifiable and independent sources of information, our country's
debate on Iraq and the struggle against terrorists has atrophied SR
After viewing this week's Sunday shows, in an effort to prop up
the president's “stay the course” catastrophe, the above spectacle
will likely become even more apparent, as well as appalling.
Lack of leadership from President Bush comes next, with the Center's
SR starting from the point that the worse the Iraq war has gotten, the more
detached the Bush administration has been from reality. My favorite slogan they
sight is fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight
them over here.” The president's usage of that canard has driven me crazy
at times.
Skipping ahead, they talk about “questioning the assumptions.”
Assumption 1: America must
fight our enemies abroad so we do not have to face them here at home.There are a couple of items in #1, but the big one is that the
terrorist bombings in London and Madrid proved that one wrong.
Assumption 2: The United States
must focus on Iraq because it is the central front in the war on terror.As is explained, it's likely that the presence of our troops in
Iraq is “attracting and motivating America's terrorist enemies.” Also,
it serves as the perfect propaganda tool.
Assumption 3: The U.S. military
is making Iraq safer.The current troop configuration isn't making Iraq safer. Top commanders
have stated that you can't win this war with the military alone.
Assumption 4: The U.S. troop
presence is helping Iraq's political transition.
It boils down to this one for me, as I read the document: “Setting
limits to our involvement there will send an important message: take charge
or lose power.” Without a timetable, we set the Iraqis up for failure,
while the United States becomes a crutch. Refer back to the quote.
Assumption 5: The current
size of the U.S. troop presence in Iraq is necessary to complete the training
of Iraqi forces.
The large U.S. military presence is a “disincentive for the
Iraqi military and police to step up and take ownership of their security.”
The other thing that's mentioned is the reality that if we still
have 140,000 troops in Iraq this time next year, as Bush's “stay the course”
plan suggests, we “will destroy our all-volunteer Army.”
Here's the proof.
The Army is closing the books on one of the leanest recruiting
years since it became an all-volunteer service three decades ago, missing its
enlistment target by the largest margin since 1979 and raising questions about
its plans for growth. Many in Congress believe the Army needs to get bigger
– perhaps by 50,000 soldiers over its current 1 million – in order to meet its
many overseas commitments, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army
already is on a path to add 30,000 soldiers, but even that will be hard to achieve
if recruiters cannot persuade more to join the service. … The Army National
Guard and the Army Reserve, which are smaller than the regular Army, had even
worse results. The active-duty Army had not missed its target since 1999…
ARMY'S
RECRUITING LOWEST IN YEARS
Under the heading of “Implementing Strategic Redeployment”
comes “Military realignment.” It's a whopper. Very briefly…
By the time we reach the final vote in Iraq in December, we will have 90,000
active duty forces, 33,000 National Guard, and another 13,000 Reservists, not
counting 24,000 non-U.S. forces from 26 countries, as it's explained in the
SR. Here's how they would be strategically redeployed.
The redeployment of U.S. forces should take
place in two phases. Phase one would take place in 2006, with the drawdown
of 80,000 troops by the end of the year, leaving 60,000 U.S. troops in Iraq
by December 31, 2006. Phase two would take place in 2007, with most of the
U.S. forces departing by the end of 2007.United States troops would immediately and
completely redeploy from urban areas, with Iraqi police, troops, and militias,
like the Kurdish pesh merga, taking responsibility for security in these areas.
…Phase two of the drawdown would begin in January
2007. By the end of 2007, the only U.S. military forces in Iraq would be a
small Marine contingent to protect the U.S. embassy, a small group of military
advisors to the Iraqi Government, and counterterrorist units that works closely
with Iraqi security forces. This presence, along with the forces in Kuwait
and at sea in the Persian Gulf area will be sufficient to conduct strikes
coordinated with Iraqi forces against any terrorist camps and enclaves that
may emerge and deal with any major external threats to Iraq.
The Strategic Redeployment continues, describing how the 80,000 troops coming
out of Iraq in 2006 should be redistributed.
There is much more involved in the Strategic Redeployment than what I've mentioned.
SR also includes the fact that out of $200 billion we've spent in Iraq, only
$1 billion has been dedicated to democracy assistance. Odd when you think of
all the lecturing we've had to endure from President Bush about starting democracy
in Iraq that will supposedly roll through the Middle East like a wave. It calls
for “smarter support” for Iraq's renewal and reconstruction – how
could it be any dumber? – including that we quit funding “hand-picked Iraqi
political parties.” The “Regional Diplomatic Initiatives” emphasized
what George W. Bush refuses to do: use America's diplomatic power.
The “Strategic Redeployment” is a “threat-based” approach
that rejects “cut and run” as well as “stay the course.”
It's intended to halt calls for immediate withdrawal (we can only pray) that
would further destabilize Iraq and make our terrorist enemies jump with glee.
But it also rejects an open ended mission that will surely cause the U.S. and
the Iraqis to lose. Amen.
It's a progressive plan to get us moving again in Iraq; in a direction that
leads us out and gives the Iraqis their country to govern as they choose. It
rescues our military from sure disaster, and the United States from a president
that never did have a plan once he started this debacle.
No doubt, it will be picked apart.
But at least Democrats now have a plan to pick apart. We didn't have one yesterday.
Lord knows President Bush never did.
