December 17, 2006
Brainstorming on Iraq
The Capital Awaits a Masterstroke on Iraq
By HELENE COOPER
WASHINGTON
SOMEONE in Vice President Cheney’s office has gotten everybody on this city’s holiday party circuit talking, simply by floating an unlikely Iraq proposal that is worthy of a certain mid-19th century British naturalist with a fascination for natural selection.
We shall call it the Darwin Principle.
The Darwin Principle, Beltway version, basically says that Washington should stop trying to get Sunnis and Shiites to get along and instead just back the Shiites, since there are more of them anyway and they’re likely to win in a fight to the death. After all, the proposal goes, Iraq is 65 percent Shiite and only 20 percent Sunni.
Sorry, Sunnis.
The Darwin Principle is radical, decisive and most likely not going anywhere. But the fact that it has even been under discussion, no matter how briefly, says a lot about the dearth of good options facing the Bush administration and the yearning in this city for some masterstroke to restore optimism about the war.
As President Bush and his deputies chew over whether there’s a Hail Mary pass to salvage Iraq, it has become increasingly clear that the president will probably throw the ball toward his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice.
Make no mistake, the Rice way is a long shot as well. It’s a catchall of a plan that has something for everyone. Its goal — if peace and victory can’t be had — is at least to give a moderate Shiite government the backbone necessary to stand up to radicals like Moktada al-Sadr through new alliances with moderate Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.
In this plan, America’s Sunni Arab allies would press centrist Iraqi Sunnis to support a moderate Shiite government. Outside Baghdad, Sunni leaders would be left alone to run Sunni towns. Radical Shiites, no longer needed for the coalition that keeps the national government afloat, would be marginalized. So would Iran and Syria. To buy off the Sunni Arab countries, the United States would push forward on a comprehensive peace plan in Israel and the Palestinian territories.
The Rice plan seems diplomatic and reasoned. But it breaks no molds. Which is why examining the Darwin Principle better helps explain the mood of the capital right now.
“Deciding to side with the Shia is probably the most inflammatory thing we could do right now,” says Wayne White, a member of the Iraq Study Group who is now at the Middle East Ins ute, a research center here. “It would be a multi-headed catastrophe.”
At first glance, the idea of siding with the Shiites doesn’t seem that crazy. America has, after all, had more spectacular trouble of late from Sunni extremists like Al Qaeda and the Taliban than from Shiites, whose best-remembered attacks on Americans were two decades ago, by hostage-takers in Iran and truck bombers in Lebanon.
But Middle East experts can provide a long list of reasons why a survival-of-the-fittest theory might not necessarily be the best way to conduct American foreign policy in Iraq. First, they say, it’s always dangerous to take sides in a civil war. Second, siding with the Shiites in a Shiite-Sunni war is particularly dangerous since most of the Arab world is Sunni and America’s major Arab allies are Sunni. Besides Iraq, Shiites form a large majority only in Iran, and, well, enough said there.
If America has problems now with Muslim extremists around the world, those would likely worsen if the United States was believed to have aided the uprooting or extermination of Iraq’s Sunni population.
On Monday, a group of prominent Saudi clerics called on Sunni Muslims everywhere to mobilize against Shiites in Iraq, complaining that Sunnis were being murdered and marginalized by Shiites.
So, where is the Darwin Principle coming from?
Well, there’s no proof Mr. Cheney really even backs it. Unnamed government officials with knowledge in the matter say the proposal comes from his office, but they stop short of saying it comes from Mr. Cheney himself.
Other top officials say it is highly unlikely that the administration would pursue such a radical course. (Of course, the radical nature of the Darwin Principle is all the more reason to assume it comes from Mr. Cheney himself.) But it is difficult to imagine the administration actually publicly announcing such a course even if it decided on it.
Can you just hear President Bush’s speech to the nation? “My Fellow Americans, the United States has decided that there are more Shiites than Sunnis in Iraq, so we are therefore going to side with the people most likely to win a fight to the death. We’ll figure out how to deal with the rest of the Arab world, where there are more Sunnis than Shiites, later.”
Still, somewhere deep inside the Beltway, someone has laid out the intellectual basis for the Shiite option. So some people with knowledge of the thinking behind the proposal were asked to explain it. None agreed to be identified, citing an administration edict against talking about President Bush’s change-of-strategy in Iraq before the president articulates exactly what that change will be. But here’s what they said:
America abandoned the Shiites in 1991 and look where that got us. Mr. Cheney has argued that America can’t repeat what it did after the Persian Gulf war, when it called on the Shiites to rise up against Saddam Hussein, then left them to be slaughtered when they did. The result was 12 more years of the Iraqi dictator’s iron-fisted rule, which ended up leading to war anyway.
Reconciliation hasn’t worked. The logic of the past couple of years has been that Iraq’s Cons ution and election process would bring together the Sunnis and the Shiites. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki was eventually able to formulate a so-called National Unity Government in which Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds all hold key positions.
That government has proved itself to be “disappointing,” one senior administration official acknowledged delicately. And violence has continued to surge.
Maybe America can scare the Sunnis into behaving. That’s the “stare into the abyss” strategy, another senior administration official said. He said that for the past three years, Sunni insurgent groups, and many Sunni politicians, have refused to recognize that the demographics of Iraq are not in their favor. Sunni insurgents can share the responsibility with Shiite death squads for the violence in Iraq, but the Sunnis have the most to lose in an all-out civil war, since they are outnumbered three to one. So perhaps Darwin Principle proponents — whoever they are — just want to scare Sunnis, including those in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other American allies, into trying harder for reconciliation.
Ms. Rice “does not believe we should plainly take one side over another,” said a State Department official, who said he doesn’t support the Shiite option but sees the convoluted logic of it. “But the demography of Iraq is a fact.”
The longer America tries to woo the Sunnis, the more it risks alienating the Shiites and Kurds, and they’re the ones with the oil. A handful of administration officials have argued that Iraq is not going to hold to together and will splinter along sectarian lines. If so, they say, American interests dictate backing the groups who control the oil-rich areas.
Darwin? Try Machiavelli. An even more far-fetched offshoot of the Darwin Principle is floating around, which some hawks have tossed out in meetings, although not seriously, one administration official said. It holds that America could actually hurt Iran by backing Iraq’s Shiites; that could deepen the Shiite-Sunni split and eventually lead to a regional Shiite-Sunni war. And in that, the Shiites — and Iran — lose because, while there are more Shiites than Sunnis in Iraq and Iran, there are more Sunnis than Shiites almost everywhere else.
Wow.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/we...gewanted=print
==============
Some crazy-assed .
The Repugs of course don't give about Iraq, only about the Repugs, who are now in mortal danger of being convicted and tatooed for decades in US and world opinion of having lied their way into an unnecessary war, and then incompently losing the war, and totally de-stabilizing a stable M/E.
The dominant reason dubya doesn't want to change course is, apart from dubya being a cretinous dumb too dumb to realize how ing dumb hie is, that if he changes course,
1) he admits his previous course (unnecessary war incompetently executed) was wrong
2) if the new course fails too, then there will be absolutely no way the dubya, head, and the Repugs can escape the verdict of having lost Iraq.
My guess is that dubya will opt to stay the course, with minor, unannounced corrections, stumble along, wasting a 1000 more US military lives in 2007, 2008. Saying all the time "absolutely, I am winning", then, chicken /Melo-girly-slapper that he is, "get the ouf of Dodge" in Jan 2009, dumping the stinking mess on the next (Dem) administration. Then the Repugs' lying/sliming machine will blame "losing Iraq" on the Dems, saying the Repugs were winning in Iraq, and it was the Dems who ed up and lost Iraq.
We saw theis Repug lying/spining machine in full gale force last week as dubya and head hit govt funds for $Ms and 1000s of military man-hours as they feted y's good buddy Rummy as a retiring national hero to whom the nation should bow down, when in fact, Rummy was ignominiously fired for total, demonstrable, murderous incompetence, matched or exceeded only by the criminal incompetence of the CPA, which was nothing but a political branch of the Repug party.
The Repugs can't win in Iraq, so they will murder truth by spinning out "Repug history", which is as credible as "Repug science"
Last edited by boutons_; 12-18-2006 at 08:52 AM.
Condi is going around spinning that the "instability" that Repug ups created in the M/E is actually good for the USA.
I think this will morph eventually into, as the goal posts get moved yet again, "the primary justification for invading Iraq was to create instability and thereby the conditions for all-out regional war between Sunni and Shia".
"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America, that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's been almost no evidence of that at all." - Bill Kristol, head neocon at the National Review
Hey, Kristol, there's no evidence that there ever was a functioning country called Iraq, never mind a democracy.
I'm speechless.
It's simple to implement The Darwin Principle. Just leave Iraq.
I think a better idea is to par ion the country into Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiittes. It's pretty clear that they aren't going to get along with each other. To have democracy, you need to have a "loyal opposition", and that just doesn't exist in Iraq.
dubya: "Absolutely, we’re winning."
but:
Iraq Violence Reaches Record Levels, Pentagon Report Says
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 18, 2006; 5:24 PM
Violence in Iraq rose across the board this fall to the highest levels on record, fueled by the growth of Shiite militia that have replaced al-Qaeda as the most dangerous force propelling the nation toward civil war, according to a new Pentagon report released this afternoon.
( Pentagon is actually a news diffusing subsidiary of CNN, WP, NYT)
Attack levels reached record highs in all categories as the number of coalition casualties surged 32 percent and the number of weekly attacks rose 22 percent nationwide from mid-August to mid-November, compared with the previous three months, according to the congressionally mandated Pentagon report.
The report do ents that U.S. and Iraqi operations to quell violence in Baghdad ultimately failed, with attacks dipping in August before rebounding in September as death squads adapted to the increased presence of U.S. and Iraqi troops.
Meanwhile, Iraqi public fears of civil war grew, while confidence in the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki dropped significantly as Maliki's efforts at political reconciliation have shown "little progress," the report said.
led "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq," the 50-page report is issued quarterly and compiled by the Pentagon at the behest of Congress.
It found that Iraqi civilian casualties rose 60 percent following the rise of the Maliki government in May.
=====================
you're doing a heckuva a job, dubya
.... just like rummy did
dubya: "Absolutely, we’re winning."
The president announces a major shift in the execution of a war, then delays it for a month.
Has anything like this ever happened in the history of this country?
Yes, Virginia, prior to Vietnam, there were entire campaigns planned, scrapped, planned again, scrapped again, and then executed without ever being revealed to the American people.
When did Americans hear about D-Day?
So your answer is no.
RIF.
So is Bushie trying to work some kind of Hail Mary troop surge to try to, well, do whatever he says cons utes victory this week?
Or what?
I get the feeling that the AEI surge plan is going to be used because their report had the word "Victory" in the le. Maybe they will call it Operation Forward Together Again.
Then I will ask the question: Has the US president ever announced a major shift in war policy, then delayed it for a month, and then ended up going with a plan put forth by a history professor who was selling his plan in print, on TV and radio?
White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops
By Robin Wright and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, December 19, 2006; A01
The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.
Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the table of the White House policy review to reverse the steady deterioration in Iraq. The option is being discussed as an element in a range of bigger packages, the officials said.
But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.
The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion.
( Gates, the WH's new fall man, said he would listen to the military, let's see if does )
At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.
The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.
The informal but well-armed Shiite militias, the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn -- then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities.
Even the announcement of a time frame and mission -- such as for six months to try to secure volatile Baghdad -- could play to armed factions by allowing them to game out the new U.S. strategy, the chiefs have warned the White House.
The idea of a much larger military deployment for a longer mission is virtually off the table, at least so far, mainly for logistics reasons, say officials familiar with the debate. Any deployment of 40,000 to 50,000 would force the Pentagon to redeploy troops who were scheduled to go home.
A senior administration official said it is "too simplistic" to say the surge question has broken down into a fight between the White House and the Pentagon, but the official acknowledged that the military has questioned the option. "Of course, military leadership is going to be focused on the mission -- what you're trying to accomplish, the ramifications it would have on broader issues in terms of manpower and strength and all that," the official said.
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said military officers have not directly opposed a surge option. "I've never heard them be depicted that way to the president," the official said. "Because they ask questions about what the mission would be doesn't mean they don't support it. Those are the kinds of questions the president wants his military planners to be asking."
The concerns raised by the military are sometimes offset by concerns on the other side. For instance, those who warn that a short-term surge would harm longer-term deployments are met with the argument that the situation is urgent now, the official said. "Advocates would say: 'Can you afford to wait? Can you afford to plan in the long term? What's the tipping point in that country? Do you have time to wait?' "
Which way Bush is leaning remains unclear. "The president's keeping his cards pretty close to his vest," the official said, "and I think people may be trying to interpret questions he's asking and information he's asking for as signs that he's made up his mind."
Robert M. Gates, who was sworn in yesterday as defense secretary, is headed for Iraq this week and is expected to play a decisive role in resolving the debate, officials said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's views are still open, according to State Department officials. The principals met again yesterday to continue discussions.
The White House yesterday noted the growing number of reports about what is being discussed behind closed doors. "It's also worth issuing a note of caution, because quite often people will try to litigate preferred options through the press," White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters.
Discussions are expected to continue through the holidays. Rice is expected to travel to the president's ranch near Crawford, Tex., after Christmas for consultations on Iraq. The administration's foreign policy principals are also expected to hold at least two meetings during the holiday. The White House has said the president will outline his new strategy to the nation early next year.
As the White House debate continues, another independent report on Iraq strategy is being issued today by the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based crisis monitoring group that includes several former U.S. officials. It calls for more far-reaching policy revisions and reversals than did even the Iraq Study Group report, the bipartisan report issued two weeks ago.
The new report calls the study group's recommendations "not nearly radical enough" and says that "its prescriptions are no match for its diagnosis." It continues: "What is needed today is a clean break both in the way the U.S. and other international actors deal with the Iraqi government, and in the way the U.S. deals with the region."
The Iraqi government and military should not be treated as "privileged allies" because they are not partners in efforts to stem the violence but rather parties to the conflict, it says. Trying to strengthen the fragile government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will not contribute to Iraq's stability, it adds. Iraq's escalating crisis cannot be resolved militarily, the report says, and can be solved only with a major political effort.
The International Crisis Group proposes three broad steps:
First, it calls for creation of an international support group, including the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Iraq's six neighbors, to press Iraq's cons uents to accept political compromise.
Second, it urges a conference of all Iraqi players, including militias and insurgent groups, with support from the international community, to forge a political compact on controversial issues such as federalism, distribution of oil revenue, an amnesty, the status of Baath Party members and a timetable for U.S. withdrawal.
Finally, it suggests a new regional strategy that would include engagement with Syria and Iran and jump-starting the moribund Arab-Israeli peace process.
==================
I'm sure the WH knows Iraq is lost, and they are now debating really not how to turn Iraq around (WH isn't bold, creative, visioary, or intelligent enough) but how to muddle on for 2 years, at the cost 2000 more military dead in attempt to save only the WH's reputation, until this WH is out of office and the heat is on the next WH, then this WH crew and its dwindling cadre of dubya suckers will be say saying how they were winning, and the next WH lost Iraq.
Nobody forget that McCain, commander-in-chief wannabe, is a "pro-surger", against the JCoS's position.
Damn, the board neocons are pretty quiet about this one.
What's to say? It's a circle-jerk thread informed by "...U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate" who happen to be unnamed.
Y'all have your fun.
in other words, the blogs and foxnews have not told me how to respond
You could say which strategy you want followed in Iraq, but I understand your masters haven't given you a clear direction yet.What's to say?
Say, gtown. Which strategy do you want to follow?
I think the ISG had some decent ideas, although their attempt to depoliticize it made it the most political plan.
Who gets Baghdad?
You knew it what was coming.
dubya s up again and does the wrong thing
==================
Bush to Expand Size of Military
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 19, 2006; 4:18 PM
President Bush said today that he plans to expand the size of the U.S. military to meet the challenges of a long-term global war against terrorists, a response to warnings that sustained deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched the armed forces to near the breaking point.
In an interview with The Washington Post, Bush said he has instructed newly sworn-in Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to report back to him with a plan to increase ground forces. The president gave no estimates about how many troops may be added but indicated that he agreed with suggestions in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill that the current military is stretched too thin to cope with the demands placed on it.
"I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops -- the Army, the Marines," Bush said in the Oval Office session. "And I talked about this to Secretary Gates and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea."
....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121900880.html
Or rather, the right thing five years too late.
"the right thing five years too late."
the numbers, probably well under 50K more, would still have been too small in Mar 2003, esp with the Repug dumb CPA disbanding the Iraqi army and police.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
