|
'Dramatic change of direction' coming for
Iraq
19.10.2006
By Sharon Behn |
|
|
|
October 19, 2006, -
The escalating violence raking Baghdad and other
Iraqi cities is pushing that nation's leaders,
neighboring Arab countries and U.S. advisers to
consider a dramatic change of direction in the
conduct of the war.
Leaks from a U.S. task force headed by former
Secretary of State James A. Baker III are
contributing to the widespread sense that the Bush
administration is preparing for a "course
correction" in the coming months.
The options cited most frequently in Washington
include the partition of Iraq into three ethnic- or
faith-based regions, and a phased withdrawal of U.S.
troops, with some remaining in neighboring countries
to deal with major threats.
Another scenario is being discussed -- and taken
seriously in Iraq -- by many of Iraq's leading
political players, under which the U.S.-trained army
would overthrow struggling Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
and replace him with a strongman who would restore
order while Washington looks the other way. Falah
Hassan al-Naqib, a Sunni politician who served as
minister of the interior in the interim government
led by Iyad Allawi until last year, told The
Washington Times he has met repeatedly with American
and Iraqi generals to discuss alternative courses of
action.
"All of them have a 'Plan B,' because if the
situation continues as it is, they will have to
defend themselves -- not just find bodies all over,"
Mr. al-Naqib said this summer at his house in
Baghdad.Mayhem has continued in Baghdad despite a
U.S. decision to redeploy some 8,000 U.S. troops
into the capital over the summer. Officials
yesterday reported the deaths of 10 American troops
across the country, putting October on track to be
the deadliest month in almost two years.
On Monday, The Washington Times reported that Gen.
George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, was
"more sober" and "more concerned" about the ability
of the Iraqi security forces when he privately
briefed senior military and civilian leaders in
Washington last week. Defense sources said he had
appeared more upbeat over the winter about the Iraqi
security force's progress.
The sources said, however, Gen. Casey was not
pessimistic and still thinks the U.S. will win in
Iraq. Gen. Casey's spokesman said the general thinks
the Iraqi security forces have made great progress
and are on track to take over more counterinsurgency
missions.
Others in the Bush administration have contributed
to the sense that the al-Maliki government has been
put on a short leash, with Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice saying on a trip to the region Oct.
6 that Iraqi leaders "don't have time for endless
debates on these issues. ... They have really got to
move forward." Days before that, Zalmay Khalilzad,
the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, said on CNN that the
Iraqi government, "in the course of the next two
months, has to make progress in terms of containing
sectarian violence."
Similarly, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman
John W. Warner, Virginia Republican, told reporters
after a trip to Baghdad this month that Congress
will have to make "bold decisions" if the Iraqi
government does not bring the sectarian killings
under control.
Even Mr. Baker, whose bipartisan commission is
expected to hand its recommendations to the Bush
administration after the congressional elections,
said on ABC's "This Week" that "I happen to think,
and I think it's fair to say our commission
believes, that there are alternatives between the
stated alternatives ... of stay the course and cut
and run."
President Bush reassured Mr. al-Maliki in a
telephone call on Monday that there was no deadline
hanging over his administration, but that has done
little to quell the speculation.
The most talked-about scenarios for a "Plan B"
include:
• Phased withdrawal:
Under this plan, U.S. troops would be gradually
withdrawn over a period of months and a reserve
force would be redeployed elsewhere in the region.
"Our troops have become the primary target of the
insurgency," argued Rep. John P. Murtha,
Pennsylvania Democrat, who laid out a plan for an
immediate withdrawal in November. "They are united
against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst
for violence. ... I believe with a U.S. troop
redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be
incentivized to take control."
He proposed the creation of a "quick reaction force"
and an "over-the-horizon presence" of Marines in the
region to deal with urgent problems such as signs
that al Qaeda was gaining control of an area.
Similar arguments have been made by Richard A.
Clarke, who provided national security advice to the
last four presidents, and Edward N. Luttwak, a
senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies.
CBS reporter David Martin recently quoted a source
in the Baker commission saying the group may
recommend a scheme under which 5 percent of U.S.
troops are withdrawn from Iraq every two months.
Opponents of the plan -- including most Iraqis --
argue that without a strong U.S. troop presence, the
country would quickly fall into a vicious civil war
and terrorists would be able to establish safe
havens from which to harass neighboring U.S. allies.
• Partition:
Under this plan, notably advocated by Sen. Joseph R.
Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat, Iraq would be divided
into Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurdish regions, each
enjoying a high degree of autonomy. A viable central
government would remain responsible for border
defense, foreign policy, oil production and revenues
under the scheme worked out by Mr. Biden and Leslie
H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on
Foreign Relations.
While acknowledging that decentralization would not
immediately end the problem of murderous militias
affiliated with the various political parties, Mr.
Biden argued in a May 1 speech in Philadelphia that
this was the best way to begin rolling them back.
"The regions can become magnets for the militia,
integrating them into local forces, and eventually
into the national force." This solution would win
quick acceptance from the Kurds, who already enjoy a
high degree of autonomy in their oil-rich northern
region and have little interest in what happens in
Baghdad.
Many Shi'ites -- who control the southern oil fields
-- would also welcome the arrangement, and this
month pushed through a new law opening the door to
the establishment of an autonomous region in the
south. The Sunnis, stuck in the middle of the
country with no oil and few other resources, could
be brought along with a constitutional amendment
guaranteeing them 20 percent of all present and
future oil revenues, argued Mr. Biden, the ranking
Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"That's ... far more than they'd get otherwise,
since the oil is in the north and south, not the
Sunni center." Mr. Baker, however, has already
expressed skepticism about the idea, noting that
there is no easy way to divide up Baghdad and other
major population centers like Kirkuk, where ethnic
and religious groupings are closely intermingled.
There are also fears that an autonomous Shi'ite
region would quickly fall into the orbit of Iran,
while the Sunni region would be ungovernable,
offering a safe haven for al Qaeda and related
terrorist groups to mount attacks on U.S. allies
like Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
• Coup in Baghdad:
While given little credence in Washington, this
scenario is being widely talked about in Iraq and in
neighboring countries, both on the streets and among
senior political and military officials. According
to the scenario, the new U.S.-trained army, along
with elements of Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist-led
army, would stage a coup to oust the al-Maliki
government and replace it with one led by a more
effective figure --
by most accounts Mr. Allawi.
One Iraqi Sunni living in Dubai, who is in close
contact with Sunni generals in exile in both the
United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, said those
generals have been discussing such a "Plan B" with
secular Shi'ites and U.S. officials for months.
These officers reportedly are convinced that Miss
Rice has been discussing such ideas during a series
of visits to Saudi Arabia over the past eight
months.
Mr. Allawi, a secular Shi'ite who led the government
before the 2005 legislative elections, is known as a
strong man with backing from both secular Shi'ites
and Sunnis tired of the sectarian killings. The
politician also is liked by U.S. intelligence
agencies, which were disappointed that his party was
unable to win more seats in the parliamentary
elections.
"The army scenario is not a bad scenario for the
United States," said Robert Killebrew, a retired
Army infantry colonel and national security analyst
who predicted civil war in Iraq more than a year
ago. "U.S. policy issues in the Middle East and Iraq
do not require a democratic Iraq, it only requires a
stable and friendly Iraq," he said.
Under this scenario, the Dubai-based Sunni source
said, the army would gradually bring back elements
of Saddam's former army, removing a major grievance
that is driving the insurgency. "The insurgency will
come under control as most of them are concerned
with keeping Iraq as one country. This is the most
important for them and for the surrounding Arab
countries," said the former officer.
According to most coup talk, the United States would
publicly condemn the move but support the new
government after a decent interval.
"My preference would be that there would be a
certain amount of sanctimonious hand-wringing and
saying that we don't agree with the overthrow of a
democratically elected government," said Mr.
Killebrew. "But we will continue to support the
Iraqis in their fight against the insurgency, which
would be de facto support."
washingtontimes com
Top |
Kurd Net
does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news
information on this page
|
® 