Withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq? Won't work. Beef them up? We're stretched too thin.
ELMAT: Wrote, even before the adventure begun: the best option should have been pizza. There's the result!!
Analysis: Few Military Options in Iraq
By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY
The Associated Press
Thursday, November 16, 2006; 5:48 PM
WASHINGTON -- Withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq? Won't work. Beef them up? We're stretched too thin.
As President Bush, Congress and a special commission seek new approaches for the unpopular war, warnings from the top American commander in the Middle East make clear there is no simple answer.
At the end of the day, military deployments will be up to President Bush, who has staunchly defended his handling of the war.
He said after last week's Democratic triumph in congressional elections that he is open to fresh approaches. With pressure on him to find a different path, the only thing most experts agree on is that each idea presents considerable risk.
"There's a big question right now on whether Iraq can be saved," Kenneth Pollack, who served on the National Security Council staff during the Clinton administration, said Thursday.
Gen. John Abizaid, who oversees military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, told lawmakers this week that the best way out of the war would be to intensify efforts to train Iraqi security forces.
Abizaid said he planned to bolster U.S. advisers assigned to Iraqi units to train them on how to fight more effectively until they can take the lead in combat.
"Ultimately," Abizaid said, "capable, independent Iraqi forces, loyal to an equally capable, independent Iraqi government, will set the conditions for the withdrawal of our major combat forces
The problem, Abizaid conceded, is the Baghdad government, which he said is only beginning to understand that it must support the Iraqi Army and not the Shiite militias engaged in near civil war against Sunni fighters.
Abizaid told the House Armed Services Committee about putting his faith in the Iraqi government and its forces, "Well, maybe it's a dumb bet. But I don't think so."
If that seemed a halfhearted endorsement of his own strategy, his description of other alternatives was even more glum.
Abizaid swatted down a suggestion being pushed by many congressional Democrats, including Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., to begin decreasing U.S. troop levels because it could cause instability. Democrats are expected to support that plan when they take over control of Congress next year.
Abizaid also said a proposal by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to bolster the 141,000 U.S. troops already there could not be sustained because the American military is stretched too thin already. He said troop increases would also erode the effort to force Iraqis to take on more responsibility.
"I believe that the troop levels need to stay where they are," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "We need to put more American capacity into Iraqi units to make them more capable in their ability to confront the sectarian problem."
On top of everything, the general predicted that if the insurgents and sectarian militias are not brought under control in four to six months, the violence would surge out of control. Coincidentally or not, that is the same time frame Levin _ who is slated to become chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee _ has proposed for beginning a U.S. withdrawal.
Bush's top military and political advisers are scrubbing military and political options in Iraq. A bipartisan commission led by Bush family friend and Republican James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton are conducting an independent assessment expected to produce recommendations next month. Senators leading the Armed Services Committee _ Levin and John Warner, R-Va. _ say they too plan to recommend a new way ahead.
Baker's panel has attracted the most attention, but is widely expected to defer to military commanders the big question on Iraq: How many troops should stay and for how long?
Abizaid's testimony will go a long way in influencing the Iraq debate. Known as a straight shooter and one of the military's premier experts on the Middle East, his advice is well regarded in Congress and at the White House.
His answer disappointed many lawmakers who said his plan sounded too much like the status quo.
"We're in one heck of a mess in Iraq, and the American people told us loud and clear last week that they are not happy with the course of this war. Neither am I," said McCain, a presidential contender in 2008.
The war is a top issue for Democrats as well. An AP-Ipsos poll released Tuesday found that people consider Iraq the top priority for Congress over the next two years, although 57 percent say the Democrats in Congress have no plan for Iraq.
"There's no evidence that three or six or nine or 12 months of this will get us over the hump," said Richard Haass, a former adviser to Colin Powell at the State Department. Haass is now president of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
Pollack, now an analyst at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said he thinks more consideration should be given to boosting troop levels dramatically _ even if it means hurting the readiness of units to fight the next fight.
"McCain is absolutely right we need more troops. But where would they come from?" asked retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, a critic of Bush's handling of the war. Garner said he thinks U.S. forces should act as a backup and logistics supplier, providing fire power when needed but focusing on advising the Iraqis.
Garner, who Bush appointed in 2003 to head reconstruction efforts in Iraq but swiftly replaced with Paul Bremer, also said the Bush administration should force CIA and State Department employees to "deploy" as troops do to hasten reconstruction, he said.
___
EDITOR'S NOTE _ Anne Plummer Flaherty covers military and foreign affairs issues for The Associated Press. |
