thedrifter
07-12-05, 06:06 AM
Posted on Tue, Jul. 12, 2005
Which exit course should U.S. take?
By RON HUTCHESON Knight Ridder Newspapers
Here are the military options for Iraq under discussion within the Bush administration, in Congress and at think tanks:
Rapid withdrawal
Advocates of a prompt pullout say it would be the fastest way to stop the loss of American life and avoid a Vietnam War-style quagmire. It also would force Iraqis to take control of their destiny and silence talk that the United States has imperialist goals for Iraq.
Opponents of a rapid withdrawal say that the departure of U.S. troops would doom Iraq to chaos.
“You’d have a messy civil war and almost certainly another dictator,” said Anthony Cordesman, a national security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a conservative think tank.
A power vacuum in Iraq might also invite meddling by Iraq’s neighbors, especially Iran and Turkey. Iran has close ties to Iraqi Shiite Muslims, and Turkey wants to stamp out any move toward Kurdish self-rule in Iraq that could stir up Turkish Kurds.
Others fear the emergence of a terror state, in the mold of Afghanistan under the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. It also would signal a serious defeat of the U.S. effort to bring democracy to the Middle East.
“I’m not calling for withdrawal because I think withdrawal is a panacea. It’s not,” said Christopher Preble, a national security specialist at the Cato Institute, a think tank. “There are a lot of risks. I just think the risks are less.”
Gradual withdrawal
One argument for reducing the presence of a large military force is that a smaller U.S. footprint could help dampen tacit support for anti-American violence.
Asked about the British memo suggesting U.S. and British plans to withdraw most of their troops by mid-2006, Bryan Whitman, a senior Pentagon spokesman, said U.S. officials had said repeatedly their goal was to begin reductions in 2006 if circumstances permitted.
“We look at the conditions as being the determining factor as to what the U.S. presence there needs to be, and we have contingencies for an increased presence, a steady state, and also a decreased presence,” Whitman said.
Plans for a gradual withdrawal generally include a loose timetable for removing U.S. troops without any firm deadline. The goal is to get the political benefits from withdrawal while minimizing the risks from leaving too soon.
Proponents contend that declaring an intention to leave would undercut the insurgency, increase pressure on Iraqis to take responsibility for their affairs and reassure Americans that the end is in sight.
“By keeping our troops in Iraq indefinitely, we’re asking them to resolve political and social issues that need to be resolved by Iraqis themselves. That’s unfair to the troops, their families and the country,” said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, a Hawaii Democrat, who joined a bipartisan group of lawmakers sponsoring legislation that calls for withdrawal starting in October 2006.
The proposed date is intended to give Iraqi security forces time to prepare for the handoff.
“If they can’t do it by then,” Abercrombie said, “we have to acknowledge that we’ll be mired there for a very, very long time.”
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made the point recently that ultimately it would fall to the Iraqis themselves to defeat the insurgency.
“Insurgencies by their nature need to be defeated by the country, the people of the country,” he said in a radio interview July 5. “A foreign occupying force really can’t do that as effectively.”
Earlier he suggested that it might take up to a dozen years to put down the insurgency. Predicting the course of the insurgency has often been off the mark, forcing officials more than once to scrap plans to reduce forces.
President Bush adamantly opposes any withdrawal deadline.
“Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done,” he said June 28 in a nationally televised speech. “It would send the wrong message to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission. … And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is wait us out.”
More troops
A military escalation in Iraq may be a tough sell politically, but it’s not a new idea. Weeks before the war’s start, Army Gen. Eric Shinseki told a congressional committee that pacifying Iraq would require several hundred thousand troops.
His remarks angered Rumsfeld, who publicly rebuked him. But some members of Congress say Shinseki was right. In their view, the stakes in Iraq demand an all-out commitment.
“I’ve always believed we need more troops,” said Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican. “I think it’s one of the major reasons we’ve had so much difficulty.”
Escalation advocates say that commanders in Iraq need more troops to stop the infiltration of foreign jihadists and to secure areas that have been temporarily cleared of insurgents.
But sending more troops may not be a realistic option because the military is already stretched thin. Nearly half of the troops in Iraq are from National Guard and reserve units, and some soldiers are on their third tours of duty. The military is having a tough time meeting its recruitment goals for the all-volunteer force.
Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said the government probably would have to revive the draft to come up with the 500,000 troops that he estimates would be needed to secure Iraq. Bush and Rumsfeld have ruled out that option.
Bush says that escalation would send the wrong signal to Iraqi security forces and the insurgents.
“Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight,” Bush said. “And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever.”
Other opponents said more troops wouldn’t make much difference, because defeating the insurgents is as much a political problem as a military one.
Stay the course
Bush and his supporters point to signs of progress in Iraq as evidence that the operation is on track.
The Iraqi elections in January succeeded beyond expectations, with more than 8 million Iraqis voting. Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafaari says he’s confident that a new constitution will be ready by the Aug. 15 target date, paving the way for ratification in October and new national elections in December.
Despite their best efforts, insurgents and terrorists have failed to provoke a civil war between rival Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Sunnis are playing a greater role in the political process, encouraging hopes that they’ll turn against the insurgency.
On the security front, U.S. military commanders say they have trained 169,000 Iraqi security forces. They refuse to say how many of them are ready to fight on their own, though, and independent estimates range from 2,500 to 40,000.
Cordesman, who supports Bush’s approach, conceded that Iraqi forces “have major problems with leadership, desertions and effectiveness.”
Administration officials say the only missing ingredients now are time and patience.
“Iraq slowly gets better every day,” Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq, told a Senate committee last month. “I am more convinced than ever that our mission there is both realistic and achievable.”
Many of Bush’s Democratic critics have proposed alternatives that are little more than variations of the president’s approach. Most call for more international help, but other countries have shown no interest in sending troops to Iraq.
Although Bush can point to signs of progress, his critics can find plenty of evidence that Iraq is heading in the wrong direction. Foreign extremists continue to pour into the country, the insurgency is as strong as ever, and the death toll continues to mount.
Iraq’s economy is in a shambles. Unemployment for young men is estimated at 40 percent in Sunni areas. Annual per capita income dropped from $137 in 2003 to $77 last year. Electricity remains sporadic. And only about 37 percent of Iraqi families are connected to a sewage network, down from 75 percent in the 1980s.
Although opinions are splintered over how to proceed in Iraq, there’s widespread agreement that a victory for the insurgents would be a big blow to American credibility and a boost for the morale of Islamic extremists. No one seems to expect the emergence of a stable, secure American-style democracy anytime soon.
“We can’t afford to lose, but we don’t know what we’re going to win,” said Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat. “It might be very little.”
Ellie
Which exit course should U.S. take?
By RON HUTCHESON Knight Ridder Newspapers
Here are the military options for Iraq under discussion within the Bush administration, in Congress and at think tanks:
Rapid withdrawal
Advocates of a prompt pullout say it would be the fastest way to stop the loss of American life and avoid a Vietnam War-style quagmire. It also would force Iraqis to take control of their destiny and silence talk that the United States has imperialist goals for Iraq.
Opponents of a rapid withdrawal say that the departure of U.S. troops would doom Iraq to chaos.
“You’d have a messy civil war and almost certainly another dictator,” said Anthony Cordesman, a national security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a conservative think tank.
A power vacuum in Iraq might also invite meddling by Iraq’s neighbors, especially Iran and Turkey. Iran has close ties to Iraqi Shiite Muslims, and Turkey wants to stamp out any move toward Kurdish self-rule in Iraq that could stir up Turkish Kurds.
Others fear the emergence of a terror state, in the mold of Afghanistan under the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. It also would signal a serious defeat of the U.S. effort to bring democracy to the Middle East.
“I’m not calling for withdrawal because I think withdrawal is a panacea. It’s not,” said Christopher Preble, a national security specialist at the Cato Institute, a think tank. “There are a lot of risks. I just think the risks are less.”
Gradual withdrawal
One argument for reducing the presence of a large military force is that a smaller U.S. footprint could help dampen tacit support for anti-American violence.
Asked about the British memo suggesting U.S. and British plans to withdraw most of their troops by mid-2006, Bryan Whitman, a senior Pentagon spokesman, said U.S. officials had said repeatedly their goal was to begin reductions in 2006 if circumstances permitted.
“We look at the conditions as being the determining factor as to what the U.S. presence there needs to be, and we have contingencies for an increased presence, a steady state, and also a decreased presence,” Whitman said.
Plans for a gradual withdrawal generally include a loose timetable for removing U.S. troops without any firm deadline. The goal is to get the political benefits from withdrawal while minimizing the risks from leaving too soon.
Proponents contend that declaring an intention to leave would undercut the insurgency, increase pressure on Iraqis to take responsibility for their affairs and reassure Americans that the end is in sight.
“By keeping our troops in Iraq indefinitely, we’re asking them to resolve political and social issues that need to be resolved by Iraqis themselves. That’s unfair to the troops, their families and the country,” said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, a Hawaii Democrat, who joined a bipartisan group of lawmakers sponsoring legislation that calls for withdrawal starting in October 2006.
The proposed date is intended to give Iraqi security forces time to prepare for the handoff.
“If they can’t do it by then,” Abercrombie said, “we have to acknowledge that we’ll be mired there for a very, very long time.”
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made the point recently that ultimately it would fall to the Iraqis themselves to defeat the insurgency.
“Insurgencies by their nature need to be defeated by the country, the people of the country,” he said in a radio interview July 5. “A foreign occupying force really can’t do that as effectively.”
Earlier he suggested that it might take up to a dozen years to put down the insurgency. Predicting the course of the insurgency has often been off the mark, forcing officials more than once to scrap plans to reduce forces.
President Bush adamantly opposes any withdrawal deadline.
“Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done,” he said June 28 in a nationally televised speech. “It would send the wrong message to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission. … And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is wait us out.”
More troops
A military escalation in Iraq may be a tough sell politically, but it’s not a new idea. Weeks before the war’s start, Army Gen. Eric Shinseki told a congressional committee that pacifying Iraq would require several hundred thousand troops.
His remarks angered Rumsfeld, who publicly rebuked him. But some members of Congress say Shinseki was right. In their view, the stakes in Iraq demand an all-out commitment.
“I’ve always believed we need more troops,” said Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican. “I think it’s one of the major reasons we’ve had so much difficulty.”
Escalation advocates say that commanders in Iraq need more troops to stop the infiltration of foreign jihadists and to secure areas that have been temporarily cleared of insurgents.
But sending more troops may not be a realistic option because the military is already stretched thin. Nearly half of the troops in Iraq are from National Guard and reserve units, and some soldiers are on their third tours of duty. The military is having a tough time meeting its recruitment goals for the all-volunteer force.
Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said the government probably would have to revive the draft to come up with the 500,000 troops that he estimates would be needed to secure Iraq. Bush and Rumsfeld have ruled out that option.
Bush says that escalation would send the wrong signal to Iraqi security forces and the insurgents.
“Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight,” Bush said. “And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever.”
Other opponents said more troops wouldn’t make much difference, because defeating the insurgents is as much a political problem as a military one.
Stay the course
Bush and his supporters point to signs of progress in Iraq as evidence that the operation is on track.
The Iraqi elections in January succeeded beyond expectations, with more than 8 million Iraqis voting. Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafaari says he’s confident that a new constitution will be ready by the Aug. 15 target date, paving the way for ratification in October and new national elections in December.
Despite their best efforts, insurgents and terrorists have failed to provoke a civil war between rival Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Sunnis are playing a greater role in the political process, encouraging hopes that they’ll turn against the insurgency.
On the security front, U.S. military commanders say they have trained 169,000 Iraqi security forces. They refuse to say how many of them are ready to fight on their own, though, and independent estimates range from 2,500 to 40,000.
Cordesman, who supports Bush’s approach, conceded that Iraqi forces “have major problems with leadership, desertions and effectiveness.”
Administration officials say the only missing ingredients now are time and patience.
“Iraq slowly gets better every day,” Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq, told a Senate committee last month. “I am more convinced than ever that our mission there is both realistic and achievable.”
Many of Bush’s Democratic critics have proposed alternatives that are little more than variations of the president’s approach. Most call for more international help, but other countries have shown no interest in sending troops to Iraq.
Although Bush can point to signs of progress, his critics can find plenty of evidence that Iraq is heading in the wrong direction. Foreign extremists continue to pour into the country, the insurgency is as strong as ever, and the death toll continues to mount.
Iraq’s economy is in a shambles. Unemployment for young men is estimated at 40 percent in Sunni areas. Annual per capita income dropped from $137 in 2003 to $77 last year. Electricity remains sporadic. And only about 37 percent of Iraqi families are connected to a sewage network, down from 75 percent in the 1980s.
Although opinions are splintered over how to proceed in Iraq, there’s widespread agreement that a victory for the insurgents would be a big blow to American credibility and a boost for the morale of Islamic extremists. No one seems to expect the emergence of a stable, secure American-style democracy anytime soon.
“We can’t afford to lose, but we don’t know what we’re going to win,” said Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat. “It might be very little.”
Ellie