I had agreed with that, and then backed off in favor of taking IRan and Syria out of the equation...change the situation plan.
Last week some reported that the Iranians & Syrians were NOT the issue in IRaq, that it was instead the home-grown insurgents who were sustaining the fight.
Given that, the best alternative they suggested was to surge in additional forces and uptempo the cordon, clear, control (3C's)strategy using US forces replaced by Iraqis. (What we have been doing in a piecemeal way up to now given the low number, low training, and corruption of Iraqi forces.)
O'Reilly visited Iraq and returned to say the whole thing actually IS sustained by Iran.
My guess is that we're going to have to do both, 3C + Neutralization of Iran.
That can be implemented quickly and executed if there were the will to do it, but my guess is that it'll get talked into oblivion.
Yeah, this is the perspective being pushed along from the antiwar side and the media buys into it.
The facts seem to indicate that it is a "all of the above" multiple choice answer with one item or items taking precedence at one time or another.
On the political side you have the old rivalries between tribes, and the fighting to retain powers they have had on and off for centuries.
IMO, there has been so much integration between Sunni and Shia over the last few decades that a true civil war is not likely and the this perception is only partly right. As is the perception that AQ, Syria, or Iran are the dominant threat. They all are!
I doubt we will ever take on Iran directly, but we will continue to tweak them, as they will continue to tweak us. Neither side wants a military direct confrontation, no matter the rhetorical flourishes.
I think we actually have the upper hand in this. I really do!
The politics are beginning to show the split between the hardliners and the populist movement growing at a slightly faster pace.
This is encouraging, and tells me we are on the right track and have been for some time now.
We cannot expect to make giant steps of progress for all to see. Bush will have to hold firm in the face of all this negative crap, and this is why we designed a Republic, as opposed to a screwball purist Democracy. The liberals belong to the screwball cult and have politicized this foreign policy project to the point of siding with the enemy. Bush will try to make the policy decisions more public and ride out the last two years of his presidency. After that, it's going to be dicey, no matter who is elected to the oval office.
We have two years to show progress, and I think we will, but there is always a chance we may not.
My glass is half full and filling slowly. That is the way I see it. More troops are not the answer. Accelerated training and development of Iraqi forces, more central control over the police, and major efforts to build the economy and it's resulting employment opportunities as security issues begin to fade are the goals. It's going to be slow but it has to show permanency.
Leadership skills and great leaders take a lot of time to emerge. They will, if we can have the Iraqis protect them while they learn to lead. More troops will help only temporarily and will lead to Iraqi's turning more of their guns on us after 6 months or less. I think we can do the Baghdad project with what we have as they are freed up in other provinces. There may be a rise in troop strength, but for no more than 9-12 weeks or so. This is as much time as we can possibly sell politically.
If all this fails and is still a mess in two years, we will still be required to stay in the fight. It will be heartbreaking to watch, but we can't let this country go to hell. We just can't.
If failure occurs, them the gloves may well have to come off, and a full fledged occupation occur. This will likely require a draft to get about 100K extra grunts to deploy on a two year commitment. We may even be required to use the border patrol.
I don't want to think about it right now. But it could happen.