The BBC is reporting that U.S. forces have seized the Iranian consulate in the Iraqi city of Irbil. We are now holding six Iranian nationals from the consulate. Reasons are not forthcoming. Details sure to follow.
In the same vein, some bloggers over at Daily Kos are pointing to a small line in Bush's speech. In the same breath, he mentioned sending an additional carrier strike force and patriot missile batteries. As ps2006voter points out, patriot missile batteries are not an anti-insurgent weapon. None of our many opponents in Iraq possess weapons which would require patriot missilesto counter.
A message to Iran? Or getting ready for the "new front"?
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Thursday, January 11, 2007
The President's Plan - On a Wing and Prayer
Alright, after sleeping on this, I have more and more doubts. Further, Rice and Gates are out and about this morning adding elaborations to the plan which need some examining.
First, the plan itself ... as I wrote last night, there seems little reason to trust the al-Maliki regime now. Promises have been made in the past to no avail. What is different now? Nothing it seems except we're saying we'll give it another go. All this in light of National Security Advisor Hadley's assessment last November that Prime Minister al-Maliki is "either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action." The ENTIRE plan now rests on this the trust of this individual. That much was clear last night.
But this morning, it deepens. Accoridng to Rice, the new way forward is actually an Iraqi plan that al-Maliki layed out for Bush in Amman, Jordan last November. Really? This could be the beginning of shifting the blame, laying a nice rhetorical touch in case things do not go as planned.
Speaking of fall-back positions, it seems like Rice's rhetoric is the only one we have. This morning, Secretary of Defense Gates was asked what we do if the Iraqis don't live up to their side of the plan. It's a good question. After all, the President said last night that our committment to Iraq is not open-ended. Gates' answer? Well, you see ... we're not sending all our troops at once ... we'll know ahead of time if the Iraqis arent' cooperating ...
Ok, so what do we do if they don't cooperate? Nothing it seems ... just keep on keepin' on. There is a lot of talk in the media that this is the "last chance plan." But I don't think so. Bush has been annoyingly consistent in one belief, that we cannot fail in Iraq. So no matter what happens or doesn't happen in Iraq, he'll try "one more time" until the end of his term, passing on the horrid mess to someone else.
I'm just not sure what he can pass on. The plan to surge and accelerate essentailly tops out our global military committment. We've got essentially nothing left to send anywhere. As the military has already said, the military is breaking. If this plan doesn't work, we've got no other options of sending troops. The only way out of that trap is to expand the military, which has already been planned. As to that plan, I have to turn to my phrase from last night, "if wishes were wings ..." It's all fine and good to say let's expand the military. It's quite another to find the volunteers to do so. All of tihs says nothing of the cost (if wishes were dollars ... well, you know).
And lastly, speaking of a strained military, there was an ominous vagueness of Bush's speech concerning Iran and Syria. The President said we'd stop their support of insurgents, logistical, training, and otherwise. How we'll do that remained undefined. Although he did mention that we are sending an additional carrier group to the region. This morning, when the questions was put to Rice (would we strike Iran directly) ... Rice demurred, nothing is off the table, we'll do what is necessary, etc. To that notion I can only reel from shock. We can barely scrape up 20,000 troops for this "surge" and we might consider radically escalating the conflict?!
Not much new here ... bad news all around.
First, the plan itself ... as I wrote last night, there seems little reason to trust the al-Maliki regime now. Promises have been made in the past to no avail. What is different now? Nothing it seems except we're saying we'll give it another go. All this in light of National Security Advisor Hadley's assessment last November that Prime Minister al-Maliki is "either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action." The ENTIRE plan now rests on this the trust of this individual. That much was clear last night.
But this morning, it deepens. Accoridng to Rice, the new way forward is actually an Iraqi plan that al-Maliki layed out for Bush in Amman, Jordan last November. Really? This could be the beginning of shifting the blame, laying a nice rhetorical touch in case things do not go as planned.
Speaking of fall-back positions, it seems like Rice's rhetoric is the only one we have. This morning, Secretary of Defense Gates was asked what we do if the Iraqis don't live up to their side of the plan. It's a good question. After all, the President said last night that our committment to Iraq is not open-ended. Gates' answer? Well, you see ... we're not sending all our troops at once ... we'll know ahead of time if the Iraqis arent' cooperating ...
Ok, so what do we do if they don't cooperate? Nothing it seems ... just keep on keepin' on. There is a lot of talk in the media that this is the "last chance plan." But I don't think so. Bush has been annoyingly consistent in one belief, that we cannot fail in Iraq. So no matter what happens or doesn't happen in Iraq, he'll try "one more time" until the end of his term, passing on the horrid mess to someone else.
I'm just not sure what he can pass on. The plan to surge and accelerate essentailly tops out our global military committment. We've got essentially nothing left to send anywhere. As the military has already said, the military is breaking. If this plan doesn't work, we've got no other options of sending troops. The only way out of that trap is to expand the military, which has already been planned. As to that plan, I have to turn to my phrase from last night, "if wishes were wings ..." It's all fine and good to say let's expand the military. It's quite another to find the volunteers to do so. All of tihs says nothing of the cost (if wishes were dollars ... well, you know).
And lastly, speaking of a strained military, there was an ominous vagueness of Bush's speech concerning Iran and Syria. The President said we'd stop their support of insurgents, logistical, training, and otherwise. How we'll do that remained undefined. Although he did mention that we are sending an additional carrier group to the region. This morning, when the questions was put to Rice (would we strike Iran directly) ... Rice demurred, nothing is off the table, we'll do what is necessary, etc. To that notion I can only reel from shock. We can barely scrape up 20,000 troops for this "surge" and we might consider radically escalating the conflict?!
Not much new here ... bad news all around.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
The President has Spoken - If Wishes were Wings ...
The President's speech was designed (over 2 months in the making) to highlight the "changes" in his Iraq "strategy." If wishes were wings, the president's new policy might be able to get off the ground.
At the outset, you might notice how much of the new policy has the Iraqi Government doing this or that. I assume these things are based on promises of the Maliki government. More on that later.
Here's a thumb-nail sketch of the "new" plan:
-The Iraqi Government will appoint a military commander for Bagdhad to coordinate increasing security.
-The Iraqi government will devote 18 Iraqi Police Brigades to patrol Baghdad.
-More than 20,000 additional U.S. troops, 5 brigades to Baghdad alone.
-The Mission of these additional troops will be to help Iraqis clear and hold neighborhoods
-The U.S. will hold the Iraqis to benchmarks of taking responsibility of security by November, 2006.
-Iraq will pass legislature to share oil revenues.
-Iraq will spend $10 billion of it's own money for reconstruction.
-Iraq will hold more elections.
-The Iraqis will reform De-Baathification Laws and amend their constition to effect reconciliation.
- We will embedding U.S. troops with Iraqis, according to the Iraq's Study Group's recommendations.
-We will double the number of reconstruction teams.
-We will work to stabilize the region by dealing with Iran and Syria.
-We will work with Turkey.
-We will work with allies to ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons.
-The President will send Condi Rice to the region to work out the details.
I honestly don't know how any of this is difference from what we've been trying before. Except this time it will work. Actually, the President did attempt to address why these efforts have failed in the past. The main reasons for past failures were the lack of adequate troops to clear and hold neighborhoods and Iraqi political interference. Well now, we'll have 20,000 (or more, Bush was not specific) and the Iraqis have promised to cooperate.
Wow, that's all that we needed ... 20,000 more troops and the Iraqis to cooperate. Now we have all that we need. Well not exactly. We have been warned to ignore all the death and destruction that we will see on the news. That has no bearing on the success of the new plan.
Finally, and my personal favorite bit of logic from the evening, the President has warned us that if we pull out now, we'll have to stay in Iraq longer than if we follow his plan. Did I miss something?
Seriously, the President has outlined a list of things he'd like to happen. The last year has more than demonstrated that our wishes count for naught in Iraq. If the new plan is to have the Iraqi government really cooperate with us now, we are in deep trouble.
As an aside, I was impressed that there was only one 9/11 reference. And although Bush said that responsibility for past mistakes rested with him, all references to these errors were in the passive voice.
Let the media feeding-frenzy begin!
At the outset, you might notice how much of the new policy has the Iraqi Government doing this or that. I assume these things are based on promises of the Maliki government. More on that later.
Here's a thumb-nail sketch of the "new" plan:
-The Iraqi Government will appoint a military commander for Bagdhad to coordinate increasing security.
-The Iraqi government will devote 18 Iraqi Police Brigades to patrol Baghdad.
-More than 20,000 additional U.S. troops, 5 brigades to Baghdad alone.
-The Mission of these additional troops will be to help Iraqis clear and hold neighborhoods
-The U.S. will hold the Iraqis to benchmarks of taking responsibility of security by November, 2006.
-Iraq will pass legislature to share oil revenues.
-Iraq will spend $10 billion of it's own money for reconstruction.
-Iraq will hold more elections.
-The Iraqis will reform De-Baathification Laws and amend their constition to effect reconciliation.
- We will embedding U.S. troops with Iraqis, according to the Iraq's Study Group's recommendations.
-We will double the number of reconstruction teams.
-We will work to stabilize the region by dealing with Iran and Syria.
-We will work with Turkey.
-We will work with allies to ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons.
-The President will send Condi Rice to the region to work out the details.
I honestly don't know how any of this is difference from what we've been trying before. Except this time it will work. Actually, the President did attempt to address why these efforts have failed in the past. The main reasons for past failures were the lack of adequate troops to clear and hold neighborhoods and Iraqi political interference. Well now, we'll have 20,000 (or more, Bush was not specific) and the Iraqis have promised to cooperate.
Wow, that's all that we needed ... 20,000 more troops and the Iraqis to cooperate. Now we have all that we need. Well not exactly. We have been warned to ignore all the death and destruction that we will see on the news. That has no bearing on the success of the new plan.
Finally, and my personal favorite bit of logic from the evening, the President has warned us that if we pull out now, we'll have to stay in Iraq longer than if we follow his plan. Did I miss something?
Seriously, the President has outlined a list of things he'd like to happen. The last year has more than demonstrated that our wishes count for naught in Iraq. If the new plan is to have the Iraqi government really cooperate with us now, we are in deep trouble.
As an aside, I was impressed that there was only one 9/11 reference. And although Bush said that responsibility for past mistakes rested with him, all references to these errors were in the passive voice.
Let the media feeding-frenzy begin!
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Surge and Accelerate - Getting Ready for the Debate
The semi-official leaks of the "New Way Forward in Iraq" are making their way through the morning news shows. While none of the information is a surprise, the media engines are beginning to rev in preparation for exhausting coverage of the official announcement scheduled for sometime next week.
So let's review ahead of the media blast.
According to the leaks the plan's central pillar is to boost troops numbers by 20,000. Also, reconstruction funding will be boosted. The "logic" of the plan is to accelerate the fight for security so that the Iraqi's can take over security roles sooner. The title of this new way forward? "Surge and Accelerate"
Ok, let's take this step by step:
-This plan is immensely unpopular: The American people are overwhelmingly against the idea of a surge. 56% Oppose, 11% Favor, %32 for the Status Quo. (Polling Report). The troops on the ground oppose this plan. For the first time, serving troops disapprove of the president's handling of the war. In terms of troop numbers, 39% favor current levels or lower while %22 favor a surge similar to Bush's plan. (Military Times Poll)(AP News).
-In terms of the reconstruction effort, where did Bush get the notion that more money is the answer. As has been amply demonstrated, the problem with the reconstruction to date has been corruption and a lack of security. (Washington Post)(BBC). Even giving Bush the benefit of the doubt about the outcome of the surge in terms of security, I will be eagerly awaiting details on where this new money will come from and how it will be handled differently from past reconstruction monies that have been squandered, wasted, or outright stolen. Also, while Congressional Democrats may be too timid to withhold funding from our troops, it is a relatively risk-free proposition to withhold funding from the proven money-pit that is the Iraqi Reconstruction.
-From a P.R. perspective, "Surge and Accelerate"? Really?! This is the best they can come up with? In a more serious vein, the time for new slogans has long been over. But apparently, P.R. and political concerns are paramount with the Administration. The New York Times had an interesting piece yesterday. Apparently, by mid-September the Administration could not deny what has been obvious to the rest of the world, namely that Iraq was spiraling out of control. They saw the need for a reassessment but would not say so publically before the elections. So, let me get this straight, the lives of our troops are less important that appearing steadfast?! (New York Times).
This just in, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki has announced that he will not seek a second term and that he "wishes his job was over"!! (Reuters).
Worst of all, this is the administration's best idea! No really, no other ideas. The American Enterpise Institute's Frederick Kagan told the Wall Street Journal yesterday.
"If we surge and it doesn't work, it's hard to imagine what we do after that. But we're already in a very bad spot, and if we don't do anything defeat is imminent."
All in all, I don't see more numbers making a difference. But it sure will be an interesting week.
Monday, October 30, 2006
News2 - The Candidates Speak - Corker on Iraq
Just caught a new News2 (WKRN) feature. Everyday till the election, they will give a moment to one of the Senate candidates to address a specific question. What a refreshing break from the constant commercials ...
Today it was Bob Corker who was asked what the U.S. should do in Iraq. Here's a summary of Corker's answer:
-Corker doesn't believe that we went into Iraq with enough troops.
Does that mean that Corker wants to send more troops? He didn't say.
-We should listen to the military on military issues.
I'm starting to see a trend ... hmm, didn't Bush give this list last week?
-We need to train Iraqis to handle their own security as soon as possible, disarm militias and concentrate on "hotspots" like Baghdad.
Aah, it is the Bush plan, namely a more verbose form of "stay the course" (wait, I forgot we're not using that phrase anymore) Will there be any surprises? Wait for it ...
-We need to support the Iraqi government as they "figure out how to divide borders within Iraq."
What's this? Divide borders? Does this mean that Corker supports a dissolution of Iraq into 3 ethnic sub-states? This topic has been bandied about for a while. Does this mean that Corker is giving up in the idea of a unified Iraq? So many questions ...
I'm looking forward to this spot evey day.
Today it was Bob Corker who was asked what the U.S. should do in Iraq. Here's a summary of Corker's answer:
-Corker doesn't believe that we went into Iraq with enough troops.
Does that mean that Corker wants to send more troops? He didn't say.
-We should listen to the military on military issues.
I'm starting to see a trend ... hmm, didn't Bush give this list last week?
-We need to train Iraqis to handle their own security as soon as possible, disarm militias and concentrate on "hotspots" like Baghdad.
Aah, it is the Bush plan, namely a more verbose form of "stay the course" (wait, I forgot we're not using that phrase anymore) Will there be any surprises? Wait for it ...
-We need to support the Iraqi government as they "figure out how to divide borders within Iraq."
What's this? Divide borders? Does this mean that Corker supports a dissolution of Iraq into 3 ethnic sub-states? This topic has been bandied about for a while. Does this mean that Corker is giving up in the idea of a unified Iraq? So many questions ...
I'm looking forward to this spot evey day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
