From the Washington Post, the Pentagon's new assessment of strategic options in Iraq. I know that usually, the limit for excerpts is four paragraphs, but I needed a couple more to really show the point of this article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901249.htmlThe 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.
...
"Go Big," the first option, originally contemplated a large increase in U.S. troops in Iraq to try to break the cycle of sectarian and insurgent violence. A classic counterinsurgency campaign, though, would require several hundred thousand additional U.S. and Iraqi soldiers as well as heavily armed Iraqi police. That option has been all but rejected by the study group, which concluded that there are not enough troops in the U.S. military and not enough effective Iraqi forces, said sources who have been informally briefed on the review.
...
"Go Home," the third option, calls for a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops. It was rejected by the Pentagon group as likely to push Iraq directly into a full-blown and bloody civil war.
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.
The purpose of the temporary but notable increase, they said, would be twofold: To do as much as possible to curtail sectarian violence, and also to signal to the Iraqi government and public that the shift to a "Go Long" option that aims to eventually cut the U.S. presence is not a disguised form of withdrawal.
Armchair DU Generals: What would you do, if given command of the US military in Iraq?
I'm with the Pentagon on Go Big - it's not possible, and if we tried, things will get much worse. Go Long sounds OK on the surface, but my gut tells me it will be prolonging the mess, and then there's Go Home, which I don't like either, because yes, it would leave Iraq in an insanely violent civil war, and chances are Iran and Syria could move in and cause lasting problems.
I'd go with Go Long as the least of evils, FOR NOW - it'll reduce our presence in the region, make it more low key, bring a lot of our troops home, while limiting the damage, though it will still be a huge, stinking mess for years to come.
But Go Long is an interim solution, and a messy one at that. The real solution to this mess has to be done diplomatically, and politically - get the various factions to the bargaining table and hammer out a political solution. All wars are ended politically, and the Go Long is something that will only limit the damage until that solution is reached. Then we Go Home.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
