This is a rather large article worth reading. In another part of the article the writers note that only one of the 3 options being considered is compatible with the ISG's recommendations. That one being the (short term)increase in troops, and then goes on to note that the ISG considered this a very risky option because it would stir up more resistance and the sectarian violence would rekindle as soon as the troops were withdrawn.
My suspicion is that BushCo will select siding with the Shiites and Kurds against the Sunnis and hope for the best - which seems to be the motivating force behind the whole catastrophe - hoping for the best despite the evidence of complete failure.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/08/AR2006120801823.htmlAs pressure mounts for a change of course in Iraq, the Bush administration is groping for a viable new strategy for the president to unveil by Christmas, with deliberations now focused on three main options to redefine the U.S. military and political engagement, according to officials familiar with the debate.
The major alternatives include a short-term surge of 15,000 to 30,000 additional U.S. troops to secure Baghdad and accelerate the training of Iraqi forces. Another strategy would redirect the U.S. military away from the internal strife to focus mainly on hunting terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda. And the third would concentrate political attention on supporting the majority Shiites and abandon U.S. efforts to reach out to Sunni insurgents.
On the political front, the administration is focusing increasingly on variations of a "Shiite tilt," sometimes called an "80 percent solution," that would bolster the political center of Iraq and effectively leave in charge the Shiite and Kurdish parties that account for 80 percent of Iraq's 26 million people and that won elections a year ago.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
