A new National Intelligence Estimate report discussing the conflict in Iraq was just released yesterday. The timing of this report is quite interesting, being that it paints a vastly different picture of Iraq than what is expected in the White House's Sept. 15 report.
A new assessment of Iraq by U.S. intelligence agencies provides little evidence that the American troop "surge" has accomplished its goals and predicts that the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki will become "more precarious" in the months ahead.
A declassified summary of the report released Thursday said that violence remains high, warns that U.S. alliances with former Sunni Muslim insurgents could undercut the central government and says that political compromises are "unlikely to emerge" in the next 12 months.
The report does suggest that violence has decreased somewhat, indicating it has more or less reached a plateau; however, it also states the levels of violence are still "high."
It also suggested that while violence is no longer increasing, any progress might be temporary. "The steep escalation of violence has been checked for now," the report said, noting, "Overall attack levels across Iraq have fallen during seven of the last nine weeks." It provided no specific statistics.
Despite the bleak forecast of the short-term future of Iraq, the NIE report suggested a troop withdrawal would be detrimental to the already deteriorating political environment, mentioning that regional neighbors are already planning for a U.S. troop withdrawal. The report warns that a withdrawal will undermine current military progress that has been made.
However, the question becomes that if political stability -- which any military progress would be useless without -- is seen as unlikely for the time being, would refusing to withdrawal troops simply be delaying the inevitable? Such was the question in Vietnam, where the refusal to pull out troops after the mission appeared impossible to complete cost tens of thousands of American lives.
The report didn't address each of those points directly, but it concluded that the "broadly accepted political compromises required for sustained security, long-term political progress and economic development are unlikely to emerge unless there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political and security developments."
The GOP would be better off if he brought the troops home after they nominate their neo-con of choice so that person has a chance of beating the Democrat who (even if it isn't true) everyone thinks will end the war. Of course, firing Rumsfeld before the 2006 election would have been smart, too, so as with everything this administration does, they'll probably screw it up. Here's hoping Ron Paul wins the nomination so that the war will definitely end when he takes office, or Bush will bring them home early so Ron Paul or the Democrat doesn't get the credit. Either way, they'll be home. For Bush's base all he has to do is declare victory and they will applaud him for taking the fight to the enemy, winning, and thus ending all terrorism forever. That is until the next president does something to incite terrorists to attack again. All he has to do is say he's right and they believe him. It's really remarkable how people can be so unfailingly sheepish and stupid.
Andrew here seems to be agreeing with the diagnosis of the NIE, but differs on the prescription. Andrew would withdraw from Iraq,
hoping to cut our losses. The NIE would prolong US involvement, hoping for a deus ex machina.
I, too, mostly agree with the diagnosis, but propose a third way solution. Instead of trying to install a central government that is democratic (but not liberal), we should:
Recognize the natural division of Iraq into three areas:
-an independent Kurdistan that is strong and mostly peaceful, with minimal help from the US
-S. Iraq has most of the oil outside of Kurdistan; the oil infrastructure should be privatized (to protect property rights that were nationalized and to reduce money going to terrorists). Because the people do not understand liberty, they should be ruled despotically by the US and Chalabi until they are ready.
-the Sunni Triangle and Sadr's territory are the most hostile to the US, and have the least assets. The US should withdraw from such areas, creating a power vacuum that would draw in Saudi Arabia. Thus our enemies would fight each other.
For interesting discussions of foreign policy, please visit the Libertarian Defense Caucus weblog:
http://libertariandefensecaucus.blogspot.com/
Iraq is not the new Vietnam. It is the new Afghanistan.
http://www.functionalisminaction.com/2007/08/bushs-new-vietnam-admission-missing.html
(Sorry for the personal plug, but I feel this needs to be heard.)
Posted by: IConrad at August 24, 2007 01:48 PM