US Plans Last Big Push in Iraq.

[shadowed by the secret police]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1116-06.htm


Published on Thursday, November 16, 2006 by the Guardian / UK
US Plans Last Big Push in Iraq
Strategy document calls for extra 20,000 troops, aid for Iraqi army and regional summit

by Simon Tisdall

President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration's internal deliberations.
Mr Bush's refusal to give ground, coming in the teeth of growing calls in the US and Britain for a radical rethink or a swift exit, is having a decisive impact on the policy review being conducted by the Iraq Study Group chaired by Bush family loyalist James Baker, the sources said.

Although the panel's work is not complete, its recommendations are expected to be built around a four-point "victory strategy" developed by Pentagon officials advising the group. The strategy, along with other related proposals, is being circulated in draft form and has been discussed in separate closed sessions with Mr Baker and the vice-president Dick Cheney, an Iraq war hawk.

Point one of the strategy calls for an increase rather than a decrease in overall US force levels inside Iraq, possibly by as many as 20,000 soldiers. This figure is far fewer than that called for by the Republican presidential hopeful, John McCain. But by raising troop levels, Mr Bush will draw a line in the sand and defy Democratic pressure for a swift drawdown.

The reinforcements will be used to secure Baghdad, scene of the worst sectarian and insurgent violence, and enable redeployments of US, coalition and Iraqi forces elsewhere in the country.

Point two of the plan stresses the importance of regional cooperation to the successful rehabilitation of Iraq. This could involve the convening of an international conference of neighbouring countries or more direct diplomatic, financial and economic involvement of US allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

"The extent to which that [regional cooperation] will include talking to Iran and Syria is still up for debate," said Patrick Cronin, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. "Externally, US policy is focused on what is achievable. Some quarters believe Syria in some ways could be helpful. There are more doubts about Iran but Iran holds more cards. Some think it's worth a try."

Yesterday, a top state department official, David Satterfield, said America was prepared in principle to discuss with Iran its activities in Iraq.

Point three focuses on reviving the national reconciliation process between Shia, Sunni and other ethnic and religious parties. According to the sources, creating a credible political framework will be portrayed as crucial in persuading Iraqis and neighbouring countries alike that Iraq can become a fully functional state.

To the certain dismay of US neo-cons, initial post-invasion ideas about imposing fully-fledged western democratic standards will be set aside. And the report is expected to warn that de facto tripartite partition within a loose federal system, as advocated by Democratic senator Joe Biden and others would lead not to peaceful power-sharing but a large-scale humanitarian crisis.

Lastly, the sources said the study group recommendations will include a call for increased resources to be allocated by Congress to support additional troop deployments and fund the training and equipment of expanded Iraqi army and police forces. It will also stress the need to counter corruption, improve local government and curtail the power of religious courts.

"You've got to remember, whatever the Democrats say, it's Bush still calling the shots. He believes it's a matter of political will. That's what [Henry] Kissinger told him. And he's going to stick with it," a former senior administration official said. "He [Bush] is in a state of denial about Iraq. Nobody else is any more. But he is. But he knows he's got less than a year, maybe six months, to make it work. If it fails, I expect the withdrawal process to begin next fall."

The "last push" strategy is also intended to give Mr Bush and the Republicans "political time and space" to recover from their election drubbing and prepare for the 2008 presidential campaign, the official said. "The Iraq Study Group buys time for the president to have one last go. If the Democrats are smart, they'll play along, and I think they will. But forget about bipartisanship. It's all about who's going to be in best shape to win the White House.

The official added: "Bush has said 'no' to withdrawal, so what else do you have? The Baker report will be a set of ideas, more realistic than in the past, that can be used as political tools. What they're going to say is: lower the goals, forget about the democracy crap, put more resources in, do it."

Addressing Congress yesterday, General John Abizaid, the top US commander in the Middle East, warned against setting a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, saying it would impede commanders in managing US and Iraqi forces. Gen Abizaid spoke as the Senate armed services committee began re-examining US policy after last week's Democratic election victory. But Gen Abizaid argued against extra troops, saying US divisional commanders believed more pressure needed to be put on the Iraqi army to do its part.

Four-point strategy

· Increase US troop levels by up to 20,000 to secure Baghdad and allow redeployments elsewhere in Iraq

· Focus on regional cooperation with international conference and/or direct diplomatic involvement of countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia

· Revive reconciliation process between Sunni, Shia and others

· Increased resources from Congress to fund training and equipment of Iraqi security forces

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006

[Krypto-Communist]

Where do they find these morons that are willing to murder on behalf of American imperialism?

I'm waiting for someone to research this question: What's the main reason why you joined the military?

1.) Tuition assistance
2.) Patriotism
3.) Nothing else to do (unemployed)
4.) My parents forced me to
5.) Job training
6.) Combination of the above (if so, which ones?)
7.) I'm a socio-path but I don't realize it.

It's probably something that people wouldn't want to know.

Stupid muppets.

[Janus]

They're gonna try to give it everything they got before the Dems. start cracking down on them. After all, even the Republican committees on the war are more and more serious in their meetings with army figures as well.

[Tekun]

The Bush regime realizes that their "stay the course" bullcrap wasn't successful on the ground
And therefore, they're willing to do just about anything to improve their rep and their chances for "stability," including putting more "muppets" down on the ground
I doubt this will do anything to improve their hold on Iraq, after all most of the killing is being committed by government death squads, with the US government's full knowledge
Plus, the rebels are involved in an urban guerilla campaign that is not affected by numbers
U can't fight a war against an enemy that blends into the population, this move will go down the drain like the old one

I guess al-Maliki wasn't included in the decision making process...and they call Iraq free and independent? :rolleyes:

[Severian]

Originally posted by Janus+November 17, 2006 06:13 pm--> (Janus @ November 17, 2006 06:13 pm) They're gonna try to give it everything they got before the Dems. start cracking down on them. [/b]
Well, that's one interpretation. The other is that SPK and Guns of Brixton have been proved right in one of their predictions:

Contrary to what many have said, I do think that the Democratic Congress signals imminent change.

Things are going to get much worse. laugh.gif
rest of this post (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58588&st=0&#entry1292207751)


The US ruling class is in crisis and, in many ways, that crisis was expressed in the recent election. The victory of the democratic party represents and signals a change of policy and, it seems, a new alliance of key factions on a new policy.
....
3. the US ruling class is committed to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan but will have to pay a high price to continue in the face of a growing resistance ready to explode. And, importantly, no faction seems to have a clear and confident plan for how to attain victory.

If their alliance holds, I would expect something like this:

1. A more aggressive prosecution of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan......
rest of this post (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58531&st=0&#entry1292207634)

The difficulty, of course, is that even current troop levels in Iraq have been hard to sustain. They have more soldiers, certainly - but the more in Iraq at once, the more rapidly soldiers have to be rotated back. Less time to rest, re-equip, train. Less ready troops ---> more casualties. More casualties --> more antiwar sentiment.

The strain on Reserve and National Guard troops yanked out of their civilian lives is especially high.

But then again, unorganized sentiment by itself can't force the ruling class to do anything.


Krypto-Communist
Where do they find these morons that are willing to murder on behalf of American imperialism?

I gotta say this kind of attitude usually boils down to class prejudice.

[Comrade_Scott]

they realize the ship is sinking and taking everybody down with them. Its sad most members of the us army im told are just kids who need money to pay for college...but hell they knew the risks (still sad).... sad bush cant admit when he has lost/ made a mistake

[Guns of Brixton]

Big floats today in the US bourgeois press about the draft.

Resorting to the draft is a sign of their desparation and weakness. Drafted troops make unreliable warriors. And, of course, the draft raises the stakes for the broader population and encourages mass resistance to the war.

Note that calls the for the draft come from leaders of the democratic party.

Also, note that many of the most "pursuasive" arguments for the draft come from liberals. Like: it puts controls on "excesses" of the military because the drafted soldiers are more normal folk. And: the draft is less racist (or "classist") because it reduces the proportion of soldiers who are there out of economic hardship or to finance a college education.

As crisis deepens and the bourgeoisie's freedom to manuever is reduced, the class nature of the capitalist parties become more deeply exposed.

Most of the liberals and pacifists will follow the most "comfortable" path and follow the bourgeoisie.

But many will face a rude awakening and become radicalized. I think of all those naive liberals, pacifists and idealists who voted for the democrats because they thought they were against the war or because anybody is better than Bush. Some of them will rebel in response to their preceived betrayal by the democrats. There are millions of these kinds of people. A small number of them transforming and joining the revolutionary ranks means a huge influx of new people into the revolutionary ranks.

This is the important thing for the left: We are in for big changes and lots of new blood.

[Tekun]

Big floats today in the US bourgeois press about the draft.
It was blown out of proportion by the media
Charles Rangel (D), congressman from NY, has been saying shit like this for about a year
He thinks its unfair that the military is composed mainly of working class ppl
So he thinks a draft would even the playing field
But this aint new, he said the same thing last year, and it went nowhere
The democrats and republicans are pretty much opposed to a draft, it would be highly unpopular and protested
Its political suicide IMO

[Severian]

Here's another article on the same thing...with a somewhat different take. The article at the beginning of the thread is from the Guardian, which IMO is just not very good journalistically anymore.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901249_pf.html)


The Pentagon's closely guarded review of how to improve the situation in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials.

Insiders have dubbed the options "Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home." The group conducting the review is likely to recommend a combination of a small, short-term increase in U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to stepped-up training and advising of Iraqi forces, the officials said.

The military's study, commissioned by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, comes at a time when escalating violence is causing Iraq policy to be reconsidered by both the White House and the congressionally chartered, bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Pace's effort will feed into the White House review, but military officials have made it clear they are operating independently.
.......
The group has devised a hybrid plan that combines part of the first option with the second one -- "Go Long" -- and calls for cutting the U.S. combat presence in favor of a long-term expansion of the training and advisory efforts. Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said.
.....
On the other hand, the hybrid version of "Go Long" may be remarkably close to the recommendation that the Iraq Study Group, led by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former representative Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.). That group's findings, expected to be issued next month, are said to focus on changing the emphasis of U.S. military operations from combating the insurgency to training Iraqis, and also to find ways to increase security in Baghdad and bring neighboring countries into talks about stabilizing Iraq.

The Pentagon group has given a thumbs-down to what it considered variants of withdrawal, such as pulling U.S. units out of the cities and keeping them in isolated enclaves, where they would not interact with the Iraqi population but would be available to combat major insurgent offensives and also to protect the government against coups.


Originally posted by Teis
The democrats and republicans are pretty much opposed to a draft, it would be highly unpopular and protested

Yup, and also it would reduce the effectiveness of their military. A number of European countries with conscript militaries have very limited ability to intervene abroad.

In the long run, as they intervene in more and more places, the ruling class may need a draft for a much larger army. Rangel's proposals can be interpreted as laying the public-opinion groundwork for this long-term prospect.

But a draft is not a short-term prospect, and certainly not proposed by anyone in the ruling class as an immediate solution to their difficulties in Iraq.