Nov. 6, 2006
SUBJECT: Iraq — Illustrative New Courses of Action
The situation in Iraq has been evolving, and U.S. forces have adjusted, over time, from major combat operations to counterterrorism, to counterinsurgency, to dealing with death squads and sectarian violence. In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough. Following is a range of options:
ILLUSTRATIVE OPTIONS
Above the Line: (Many of these options could and, in a number of cases, should be done in combination with others)
¶Publicly announce a set of benchmarks agreed to by the Iraqi Government and the U.S. — political, economic and security goals — to chart a path ahead for the Iraqi government and Iraqi people (to get them moving) and for the U.S. public (to reassure them that progress can and is being made).
¶Significantly increase U.S. trainers and embeds, and transfer more U.S. equipment to Iraqi Security forces (ISF), to further accelerate their capabilities by refocusing the assignment of some significant portion of the U.S. troops currently in Iraq.
¶Initiate a reverse embeds program, like the Korean Katusas, by putting one or more Iraqi soldiers with every U.S. and possibly Coalition squad, to improve our units’ language capabilities and cultural awareness and to give the Iraqis experience and training with professional U.S. troops.
¶Aggressively beef up the Iraqi MOD and MOI, and other Iraqi ministries critical to the success of the ISF — the Iraqi Ministries of Finance, Planning, Health, Criminal Justice, Prisons, etc. — by reaching out to U.S. military retirees and Reserve/National Guard volunteers (i.e., give up on trying to get other USG Departments to do it.)
¶Conduct an accelerated draw-down of U.S. bases. We have already reduced from 110 to 55 bases. Plan to get down to 10 to 15 bases by April 2007, and to 5 bases by July 2007.
¶Retain high-end SOF capability and necessary support structure to target Al Qaeda, death squads, and Iranians in Iraq, while drawing down all other Coalition forces, except those necessary to provide certain key enablers for the ISF.
¶Initiate an approach where U.S. forces provide security only for those provinces or cities that openly request U.S. help and that actively cooperate, with the stipulation being that unless they cooperate fully, U.S. forces would leave their province.
¶Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Fallujah when they pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior. Put our reconstruction efforts in those parts of Iraq that are behaving, and invest and create havens of opportunity to reward them for their good behavior. As the old saying goes, “If you want more of something, reward it; if you want less of something, penalize it.” No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence.
¶Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Government.
¶Withdraw U.S. forces from vulnerable positions — cities, patrolling, etc. — and move U.S. forces to a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) status, operating from within Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need assistance.
¶Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and Coalition forces (start “taking our hand off the bicycle seat”), so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country.
¶Provide money to key political and religious leaders (as Saddam Hussein did), to get them to help us get through this difficult period.
¶Initiate a massive program for unemployed youth. It would have to be run by U.S. forces, since no other organization could do it.
¶Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis. This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not “lose.”
¶Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) — go minimalist.
Below the Line (less attractive options):
¶Continue on the current path.
¶Move a large fraction of all U.S. Forces into Baghdad to attempt to control it.
¶Increase Brigade Combat Teams and U.S. forces in Iraq substantially.
¶Set a firm withdrawal date to leave. Declare that with Saddam gone and Iraq a sovereign nation, the Iraqi people can govern themselves. Tell Iran and Syria to stay out.
¶Assist in accelerating an aggressive federalism plan, moving towards three separate states — Sunni, Shia, and Kurd.
¶Try a Dayton-like process.
More Articles in International »
Who are you people on this thread?
Does the above memo sound at all like the characterization you and the NYT's is giving it?
Reducing bases is not redeployment to Okinawa and is consistent with Rummy ideas of running lean. It also indicates a desire to consolidate our position in Iraq for the long term. Having 5 long term bases in Iraq will be the basis for our future stability in that region.
The NYT's jumps right over Rummy's main point. As each front in Iraq has changed, our military has changed and won. He implies that the current front is now "death squads and sectarian violence". This new front of death squads and sectarian violence" (not the entire situation) is addressed in following
In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough. Following is a range of options:
¶Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and Coalition forces (start “taking our hand off the bicycle seat”), so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country.
¶Set a firm withdrawal date to leave. Declare that with Saddam gone and Iraq a sovereign nation, the Iraqi people can govern themselves. Tell Iran and Syria to stay out.
=========================================================== I can't wait to see what everyone's reaction is going to be when the Baker report comes out, and advocates the very same things. Draw down of US forces and specific dates? Sounds like what the Iraq study group has been leaking. (Rumsfeld is suggesting the very same things President Bush said won't happen).
Rummy's first point isn't a change in military strategy or tactics. It is a change in handling press releases.
As Rummy suggests that if the new front is "death squads and sectarian violence", of course it requires a shifting of resources from other fronts.
Note his dig to our own Government insider's. Why doesn't the NYT pick up that their beloved state departments have failed and we need to look to private individuals?