|
The War Profiteers - War Crimes,
Kidnappings, Torture and Big Money |
|
November 20th,
2006 - Pentagon May Suggest Short-Term Buildup Leading to Iraq Exit |
|
Pentagon May Suggest
Short-Term Buildup Leading to Iraq Exit By Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, November 20, 2006; A01 The 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. The military's study,
commissioned by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, comes at a
time when escalating violence is causing Iraq policy to be reconsidered by
both the White House and the congressionally chartered, bipartisan Iraq Study
Group. Pace's effort will feed into the White House review, but military
officials have made it clear they are operating independently. The Pentagon group's
proceedings are so secret that officials asked to help it have not even been
told its title or mandate. But in recent days the circle of those with
knowledge of its deliberations has widened beyond a narrow group working for
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "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. The sources insisted on
anonymity because no one at the Pentagon has been permitted to discuss the
review with outsiders. The review group is led by three high-profile colonels
- H.R. McMaster and Peter Mansoor of the Army, and Thomas C. Greenwood of the
Marine Corps. None of them would comment for this article. Spokesmen for the chairman
and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs did not respond to calls or e-mails
seeking comment. "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. Even so, there is concern
that such a radical shift in the U.S. posture in Iraq could further damage
the standing of its government, which U.S. officials worry is already shaky.
Under the hybrid plan, the short increase in U.S. troop levels would be
followed by a long-term plan to radically cut the presence, perhaps to 60,000
troops. That combination plan, which
one defense official called "Go Big but Short While Transitioning to Go
Long," could backfire if Iraqis suspect it is really a way for the
United States to moonwalk out of Iraq - that is, to imitate singer Michael
Jackson's trademark move of appearing to move forward while actually sliding
backward. "If we commit to that concept, we have to accept upfront that
it might result in the opposite of what we want," the official said. The Pentagon official said
this short-term boost could be achieved through three steps: extending the
tours of duty of some units already in Iraq, sending other units there
earlier than planned and activating some Army Reserve units. The group concluded that
such a step might be necessary because it is concerned that the continuing
violence is undercutting the Iraqi government's credibility. "Folks
increasingly realize that if violence can't be contained, the spiral downward
will continue, the national government will lose the effectiveness it has . ...
and then all bets will be off," the official said. Also, it would take months
to prepare and implement the expansion of the program to train and advise
Iraqi forces, he noted. The military would have to find those additional
advisers, prepare them for the deployment, get infrastructure in place to
house and feed them, order and ship equipment for them to use, and recruit
additional Iraqis for them to train. "The 'Go Long' approach
is one that can work if there is sufficient strategic patience, resources
appropriated and [if] leadership executes effectively," a military
intelligence official said. Another potential obstacle
to the "Go Long" option is that it runs counter to the impulse of
many congressional Democrats to find a way to get out of Iraq quickly.
Planners envision taking five to 10 more years to create a stable and
competent Iraqi army. Because it wouldn't lead to a swift exit, some
Democrats could criticize this option as a disguised version of "staying
the course." On the other hand, the
hybrid version of "Go Long" may be remarkably close to the
recommendation that the Iraq Study Group, led by former secretary of state
James A. Baker III and former representative Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.). That
group's findings, expected to be issued next month, are said to focus on
changing the emphasis of U.S. military operations from combating the
insurgency to training Iraqis, and also to find ways to increase security in
Baghdad and bring neighboring countries into talks about stabilizing Iraq. The Pentagon group has given
a thumbs-down to what it considered variants of withdrawal, such as pulling
U.S. units out of the cities and keeping them in isolated enclaves, where
they would not interact with the Iraqi population but would be available to
combat major insurgent offensives and also to protect the government against
coups. Army Gen. John P. Abizaid,
the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East, expressed a similar view
last week when he told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he thinks
that immediate troop withdrawals would increase the violence in Iraq. External link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901249.html |