Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Should Bush Do? The President must decide how to stabilize Iraq.
Time ^

Posted on 04/11/2004 9:29:49 PM PDT by Happy2BMe

Monday, Apr. 19, 2004
"[Bush] might redefine success and announce a quicker exit strategy."
The bloody events in Iraq over the past month have raised the specter of another huge American disaster, the possibility that after again spending blood and huge treasure we will have to get out of Iraq without leaving a stable democratic government and the Middle East transformed—at least not in the way the Administration expected. As uncertainty rises in the U.S. about what we are doing in Iraq, the bipartisan consensus insists that we must "stay the course" because failure to do so will have "catastrophic" consequences for the U.S. and Iraq.

It is too early to declare that we will be unsuccessful in Iraq if we strenuously persist in pursuing important goals. But the basis for believing these can be achieved is eroding. There is a growing belief in the U.S. that we do not know what we are doing in Iraq, that the U.S. is drifting and losing Iraqi support, and to use another once familiar term, that we are in a "quagmire." Regrettably, there is reason for the increasing skepticism. The Administration's basis for going to war has come to look shaky, and it clearly had little idea of what to expect beyond destroying the Saddam regime. We are trying to create a radically different state in a place we have little understanding of and were effectively cut off from for 15 years. We are supposedly turning over "sovereignty" in less than three months, but we are not sure to whom.

It is tempting to believe, as many on both sides of the aisle apparently do, that we can achieve success by turning the military task over to NATO or by relying on the U.N. to fashion an Iraqi government. But NATO is not going to supply many troops in continuing hostilities. As for the U.N., its capacity at this juncture to shape the political future of Iraq is equally dubious. It has had a checkered history in Iraq, and the Iraqi parties struggling for power are not overly concerned about any international legitimacy the U.N. might confer.

At some point the President may have to consider different approaches. He might redefine success and announce a quicker exit strategy that would include early elections, the complete turnover of political rule and military security to an Iraqi government, and the removal of all U.S. forces within a year. Such a policy would still require spending lots of money, time and diplomatic effort on our part pulling in more help from our allies. But it also bows to the realities of our predicament and probably gives the Iraqis greater urgency to form their own government, however democratic or parlous. A deadline for reducing our involvement might also win us greater international support.

The potential costs of leaving Iraq sooner rather than later, in uncertain circumstances, are great—instability and even civil war in Iraq, a vast loss of prestige and influence in the Arab world, encouragement to terrorists, and a serious decline in our unrivaled political ability to use force. But these must be matched against the costs of staying, a debate which is all too little done in public. If the worst does persist and the Administration wants to stay the course, the President must come forth and candidly tell the public not only the costs of leaving but also those of staying—the casualties, the expense, the continuing abrasions with allies, the polarization of our public life, the sidelining of other domestic and foreign priorities, and the uncertainty of success.

Ultimate success in Iraq would be a great achievement and is still worth vigorously pursuing. But the U.S. can also endure failure, however traumatic; it has done so in the past, it will likely do so in the future. It has a still enormously pre-eminent power position, the continued dependence of the world on our making things happen, the dynamism of its people, and above all great resilience. Hopefully, we will not fail, but if we do, we can be confident of surviving it.
— By Morton Abramowitz

"We need more help ... [we need] to be more creative about obtaining it."
The President must demonstrate to Iraqis and to the rest of the world that we are determined to finish what we started and do what it takes to bring about a stable, democratic Iraq. That means, above all, restoring the security situation. We can't hope to meet the June 30 deadline unless the country is relatively secure. This will require decisive removal of the groups that have taken over certain towns. It will require decisive defeat of the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and of anyone else willing to take up arms against the coalition. We must commit the armed forces necessary to do the job.

We need more help from our friends and allies, and the Administration needs to be more creative about obtaining it. We could draw more help by first asking them to help us with broader development issues in the region, like economic reform and democratization. This would link stabilization of Iraq to the broader region and demonstrate to our allies that our agenda is more than a military one.

Security is absolutely necessary now for U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to travel in Iraq and to complete his work on reaching a governance agreement among Iraqi factions for the transfer of sovereignty. The transition requires a new U.N. Security Council resolution explicitly recognizing this arrangement and giving it international legitimacy. These are crucial steps that the Administration must make every effort to get right.

Finally, the Administration must demonstrate to Americans and Iraqis that this transition is going to be well-managed, including the part that shifts U.S. power from L. Paul Bremer at the Coalition Provisional Authority to a new U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Ideally, the ambassador, who requires Senate confirmation, should have been nominated before now. The Administration must appoint and provide security for the estimated 3,000 embassy personnel, who must get out into the country.

The American public needs confidence that this planning is progressing well. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing next week, when I will ask the State Department to lay out the arrangements that have been made. The Congress, and in fact the world, needs to see how the June 30 transition date can work.
— By Richard Lugar

"We need 80,000 or more troops added to the U.S. Army."
When a grass fire first starts, you can jump right in the middle of it and stomp it out. But if you wait too long, it just becomes uncontrollable. We should immediately jump onto the opposition and end it, and then launch smart diplomatic moves to get NATO and the U.N. and other Arab forces involved in a bigger way.

There are no more U.S. troops to send to Iraq. That's why we need 80,000 or more troops added to the U.S. Army. Congress is allowing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to dig in his heels and try to maintain a foreign policy based on a grossly undermanned U.S. military. The key question isn't whether the 1st Cavalry Division is going to get run out of Baghdad—it's not. The key question is, if you've got 70% of your combat battalions in the U.S. Army deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea and elsewhere, can you maintain this kind of muscular presence in that many places? The answer is no. But if we take action now to increase the size of the Army by 80,000 soldiers, we'll be able to handle this global reach. The key would be to activate nine National Guard brigades in the next 18 months and convert them into active-duty soldiers, allowing the reservists to go back to their communities.

The transfer of political authority on June 30 is extremely premature. By that date, there will not be a sovereign government with any political legitimacy. And here's another challenge we face: we need to put the training of Iraqi security services—the police, army, border patrol and others—solely under the control of the U.S. military instead of the Coalition Provisional Authority and give these Iraqi recruits more money. Iraq is costing us $4 billion a month, and only a tiny percent of that has gone directly to support the creation of Iraqi security forces. We should also transfer authority for security policy in Iraq from Rumsfeld to Secretary of State Colin Powell because the most important tasks are now diplomatic.

We need to invest two to 10 years in Iraq, and we'll have a good outcome. But if we think we're dumping this responsibility in the coming year, we're going to end up with a mess on our hands that will severely impair our international role for the coming 20 years.
— By Barry McCaffrey

— Morton Abramowitz headed the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana chairs the Foreign Relations Committee. Barry McCaffrey, a retired four-star Army general, was wounded three times in Vietnam.


TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: barrymccaffrey; bush; iraq; timemag
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last
"We need to invest two to 10 years in Iraq, and we'll have a good outcome.."
1 posted on 04/11/2004 9:29:50 PM PDT by Happy2BMe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
PACIFY- Defeat the insurgents, defeat private armies, militia's and fiefdoms.

RECTIFY- The Governing Council must have the ability to begin an immediate assessment and begin to document the crimes of Saddam Hussein. They need the power to prove to their people that they mean it when they say "never again".

2 posted on 04/11/2004 9:37:42 PM PDT by GeronL (National 'Whip the Bunny' Holiday!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; MeekOneGOP; Salem; Ragtime Cowgirl; dennisw; SJackson; B4Ranch; JohnHuang2; Prime Choice; ..
What should Bush do - ping.
3 posted on 04/11/2004 9:40:10 PM PDT by Happy2BMe (U.S.A. - - United We Stand - - Divided We Fall - - Support Our Troops - - Vote BUSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
"The potential costs of leaving Iraq sooner rather than later, in uncertain circumstances, are great"

Interesting choice of words.

"instability and even civil war in Iraq, a vast loss of prestige and influence in the Arab world, encouragement to terrorists, and a serious decline in our unrivaled political ability to use force."

All things the Democratic party is for.

"But these must be matched against the costs of staying"

Indeed. The one truly unacceptable cost of staying is, of course, supporting George W. Bush and the United States. Many cannot bring themselves to do it. The prospect of millions plunged into unnecessary misery, ruin to the efforts and policy of their country, rewarding bloodthirsty murderers, ones perfectly willing to target them personally - these are after all minor and remote matters. That orgasmic release of self righteousness at the merest hint of a thought of a Bush concession speech, why, that would be worth complicity in genocide.

4 posted on 04/11/2004 9:40:23 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JasonC
It is not complicated. Pols all want to make it so complicated. They live for false complexity to construct their towering sophisticated self importance on.

Unite at the water's edge. Support our President. Stay the course.

5 posted on 04/11/2004 9:43:42 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Stay the course. It took 5 years in Japan and even longer in Germany. With the ME mindset, I wouldn't be surprised if it took 10 years in Iraq.
6 posted on 04/11/2004 9:47:46 PM PDT by ETERNAL WARMING (He is faithful!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Barry McCaffrey

Clinton Operative! Hillary would love for Bush to institute the draft - she sees a lot of opportunity for herself in that move!

The next 6 months will see the deMocRATS all over the board on every issue! Their number one tactic of choice is to "fragment" Republicans - turn Republicans against Republicans! Turn Christians against Bush; Catholics against Christians; Christians against Jews; ethnic group against ethnic group.

Hillary always gives you a clue - a piece of the puzzle - because she is smart and you aren't so she thinks you will never put it together!

Unforseen events! BIG CLUE

Focus on Hillary and Soros - unforseen events - that seem to magically happen as if by instant combustion!

Do NOT be distracted by Bill Clinton - he is worthless to putting the puzzle together and worthless to Hillary - and she does not need him anymore!

Hillary and Soros - that's the ticket to watch!

7 posted on 04/11/2004 9:49:21 PM PDT by TrueBeliever9 (aut viam inveniam aut faciam (where there is a will - there is a way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TrueBeliever9
Catholics against Christians

You wearing your asbestos undies?

8 posted on 04/11/2004 9:53:54 PM PDT by ASA Vet (I've run out of tagline ideas. Hopefully the blockage is temporary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Barry McCaffrey, a retired four-star Army general, was wounded three times in Vietnam.

BUMP

9 posted on 04/11/2004 9:54:54 PM PDT by TrueBeliever9 (aut viam inveniam aut faciam (where there is a will - there is a way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet
I am not into kinky stuff!
10 posted on 04/11/2004 9:56:46 PM PDT by TrueBeliever9 (aut viam inveniam aut faciam (where there is a will - there is a way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TrueBeliever9
What's the problem? You don't like feathers?
11 posted on 04/11/2004 10:01:23 PM PDT by ASA Vet (I've run out of tagline ideas. Hopefully the blockage is temporary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
The potential costs of leaving Iraq ... are great--... a vast loss of prestige and influence in the Arab world, encouragement to terrorists, and a serious decline in our unrivaled political ability to use force.

I am not so sure. The U.S. demonstrated that it could conquer a country, hold it for a year, take casualties. If in the end it turns out that the Iraqi population is too fractious, backward, poor and illiterate to sustain a government it reflects poorly on our judgement in undertaking such a task, but the military demonstrated abilities far beyond what any other country could hope to do.

12 posted on 04/11/2004 10:05:25 PM PDT by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
"There are no more U.S. troops to send to Iraq. That's why we need 80,000 or more troops added to the U.S. Army. "

What a goddamned *shill* he is ... adding troops to the army in next FY will increment the force structure in ... oh 2006 or so.
And he's lying when he says there are no more troops to send. fact is, the generals dont want more. Sanchez has said so. what we lack is good *IRAQI* elements to the security structure. We are building that up now.
13 posted on 04/11/2004 10:58:02 PM PDT by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - I salute our brave fallen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JasonC
JasonC your "support our President" reminds me of a post I am makingon a blog ...

Have to respond to comment wrt kerry.
Kerry is the 9/10 President.

In january, kerry said the threat of terrorism was exagerrated. 6 weeks later - the Madrid bombing, an A-Q hit that changed election there.

Kerry is an idiot regarding national security. He is all over the map on Iraq, shifting his position based on whatever is most politically palatable at the current moment. I dont see how anyone can predict Kerry's Iraq policy in 12 months, he went from being on the 'depose Saddam' side in 1998, talking seriously about Saddam's WMDs in 2002, voted for congressional resolution, then hopped on the anti-war bandwagon and voted against reconstruction aid. Now he plays the 'multilateral' card, when we've got 30 nations with us, and when he is never challenged on the *absurdity* of the UN - which cut and ran in bosnia - being an effective force for security in Iraq. Fact is, coalition is using UN as best they can be used, to help run elections.

It's politicians like Kerry which the terrorists love. The terrorists can play them like violins.

Bush is way to stubborn to be deflected by the terrorists. Some people hate his lack of nuance; well, BS, we've had "nuance" with terrorists for 20 years and it got us 9/11. We need RESOLVE and Bush has it in spades. Re-elect Bush and in 2008 we'll be discussing "how we won the war on terror"... JMHO.
14 posted on 04/11/2004 11:00:28 PM PDT by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - I salute our brave fallen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Turn it over to the Iraqis but keep the military in charge of security, and Bush is doing that.
15 posted on 04/11/2004 11:20:25 PM PDT by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin
The Turks offered to send a sizeable force to Iraq. The Kurds at the time protested but would probably accept Turkish involvement as long as they are sent to the south. About 12-15000 would buttress the International force and cover us if the Spanish bail on june 30th. We should also get the Kurds to provide their own security as soon as possible with minimal US presence. That would allow us to concentrate the bulk of our forces (110,000+) in the Sunni triangle. After June 30th, the Iraqi Governing council could request additional troops from countries like Egypt or Pakistan to help out in the south allowing the Brits to join us up north if necessary. But I would still like to see us bulk up to 12 Army divisions. But that could take a year to accomplish.
16 posted on 04/11/2004 11:33:17 PM PDT by DHerion (Bring in the turks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
"We need to invest two to 10 years in Iraq, and we'll have a good outcome.."

OR...
We could hurry things along a bit and let Billery & Gore sort things out since they know all about how to make best friends of America's enemies. The Marines could just drop them in the middle of FALLUJAH to "talk" to the killers about what they know best.

Bill can talk about how to get virgins (by way of interns) without 1st having to die.
Hillary could explain the evils of the "vast right wing conspiracy" and get a few more endorsements for 2008 election year.
Gore can plant a tree right there in the sand, and talk about the ozone layer & global warming.

Now if they fail we go to plan "B".
Send Kerry over to fix things. Again, drop him off in the middle of FALLUJAH, but Kerry must take along all his medals. The Iraqi's will be so impressed by him (just as we all are) since he is such a "war hero" that they will surely throw down their weapons to kneel before him.

I'm sure if we worked really hard and make this sacrifice we could handle things here in the Good Old U.S. without them while they go about "fixing" our country.
17 posted on 04/12/2004 12:10:05 AM PDT by GottaLuvAkitas1 (Let's turn Iraqi sand into some useful glass!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
How about dramatically letting the outside financiers of the foreign fighters know that we are removing their oil income rapidly through breakthrough technology not controlled by their pals in the majors? Don't look for this to happen in Washington. If it did, we could control the whole problem and solve it.
18 posted on 04/12/2004 12:32:23 AM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them, or they like us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
I don't disagree about Kerry. But I wish he were qualified to handle the terrorists. Because the uncertainty about it, abroad, encourages them. We'd all be safer if both parties had responsible policies on the matter, and believable leaders committed to those policies. Even if those policies differed somewhat, as long as they both understood the importance of the war and winning it and not giving in.

In addition, however, I meant something additional by my "support our President" comment. I meant, he is our President, all of us, Americans, not just a President of Republicans. We have one. Our founders gave us unity in the executive for a reason. Foreign enemies must face the strength of purpose and policy of a single will. And to make that effective, the rest of us need to understand ordinary loyalty, and to practice it when we are at war and in other times of crisis.

Politics will always be with us. But we need to keep it within bounds and to behave responsibly, for our political system to work, and especially for it to be able to handle determined enemies who count on splitting us up, dividing us against each other, and exploiting our differences to weaken us.

This is still an experiment in self-government. It is not written in stone that democracies can function in a world of hostile powers, and not a few have in the past been destroyed by hostile outsiders pitting internal factions against each other. We need to keep our tradition of bipartisan unity in foreign policy alive.

That doesn't mean always doing what Republicans want, or always being hawks. It does mean supporting the President in a foreign policy crisis, even when he is not of our party. Not everyone on the right has done that. I did, but not everyone here did, under Clinton.

The Dems are not doing so now, and that is blameworthy. But the blame is assigned to correct the behavior, not just to score political points and further the division. We've got too much of it in these matters as it is.

America desperately needs responsible people to step forward within the Democratic party and tell the defeatists and hyperpartisans - the type that prefers to see their country fail than to see Bush succeed - to get lost. I hope if they lose in November some of them will do that. The grown ups in the Democratic party are not loud enough these days, and in the long run that hurts their party's health and prospects, as well as the country.

My comment about it not being complicated to just support our President was meant not just for Republicans but for all Americans, and not just by votes but on policy and on principle, even if you don't plan to vote for him in November. He is America's President, for better or worse, right now. And he needs our support - all of us - in this war.

19 posted on 04/12/2004 12:35:21 AM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
I say we just kill the bad guys.

Seeming as how they are now outting themselves, this doesn't seem too hard.

20 posted on 04/12/2004 12:43:57 AM PDT by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson