November 30, 2006

MAYBE WE DID LEARN SOMETHING FROM VIETNAM:

Study Group to Call for Pullback (Thomas E. Ricks and Robin Wright, 11/30/06, Washington Post)

Under the recommendations of the commission, led by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), the emphasis of the U.S. military presence in Iraq would shift from fighting the insurgency and containing sectarian violence to backing up Iraqi security forces dealing with those problems.

This approach would place less emphasis on combat operations and more on logistics, intelligence and training and advising Iraqi units. Also, a large residual combat force would be required to protect all the personnel involved in those operations and to provide a security guarantee to the Iraqi government.

Thus, even if the combat forces were withdrawn, the person familiar with the group's thinking noted, the recommendation envisions keeping in Iraq a "substantial" U.S. military force.

Some people knowledgeable about the group's deliberations said it might be possible in a year or two to halve the U.S. military presence, to about 70,000 troops. Earlier reports that said that the group simply had decided to call for withdrawing combat forces from Iraq were "garbled," the source familiar with the panel's recommendations added. "It wasn't as specific as that, and it was a lot more conditional," he said. He declined to discuss those conditions.

"We reached a consensus, which in itself is remarkable," said another source close to the 10-member panel of prominent Republicans and Democrats. Divisions had been deep in the run-up to this week's final deliberations.

The findings dovetail with recommendations being considered by the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, who are conducting their own review of Iraq policy. That group is leaning toward an option that involves a brief surge of troops in Iraq, followed by a partial drawdown and a shift from combat operations to training and advising, according to sources familiar with the process. Troops would remain in Iraq for five to 10 years under this option, which is known within the military as "go long."


Bush agrees to speedy turnover in Iraq (DEB RIECHMANN, 11/30/06, Associated Press)
President Bush said Thursday the United States will speed a turnover of security responsibility to Iraqi forces but assured Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that Washington is not looking for a "graceful exit" from a war well into its fourth violent year.

As Mark Moyar's excellent study, Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965, makes clear, the key will be to support the Iraqis, rather than try dictating to them, as the Occupation too often has. Drawing down and allowing a devolution of the country into its constituent parts are excellent first steps, even if several years late.


Posted by Orrin Judd at November 30, 2006 8:49 AM
Comments

Makes sense. However to avoid the cut and run interpretation it probably would make sense to do the temporary buildup, do some serious clean up, and then begin drawing down. At the same time keep the pressure on Syria and Iran and point out that they are the problem, not part of the solution

The other risk is the growing perception that the Middle East and the Iraq govt in particular aren't strong enough to maintain the democracy and that giving them more responsibility is cutting and running in a different manner.

Posted by: AWW at November 30, 2006 9:48 AM

It certainly does make sense. Why, if one reviewed old comments here it closely resembles things some of us have been writing for months and months.

By all means have the socii be the ones kicking down doors and getting ground up. Pull the legions back into secure castra, including airbases, for the duties of modern war beyond what "Iraqi batallions" are up to.

There will still be casulties from terrorist and bandit activities, but these will be greatly diminished. Also the Iraqis will be the ones making the decision to flatten this or that bandit stronghold. Since Iraqis will be the ones paying the butcher's bill for fastidiousness, we may look forward to an end to rules of engagement which encourage the enemy to hide behind protected persons and places.

Is is likely that we have been putting this off out of so-called "realism," in order to put off the inevitable final de-Baathification. Remember, the American people do not support endless war which is not war and will not follow an administration which is afraid to win.

Posted by: Lou Gots at November 30, 2006 10:13 AM

The point is to defeat the neo-cons. The realists want a Vietnam-nesque withdrawal to prove that they were right and the neo-cons were wrong, that they have not "abandoned" the Iraqis after the Gulf War. It doesn't matter that Iraq descends into worse chaos, the realists just want to prove they are superior to the moron Bush.

Posted by: ic at November 30, 2006 5:28 PM

Of course, the neocons just want to stay for the sake of staying. A plague on both their houses.

Posted by: oj at November 30, 2006 6:06 PM
« IT'S NOT AS IF ANYONE TOOK THEM SERIOUSLY: | Main | WINNING THE CULTURE WAR: »