http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2006/11/10/natiroptions1110a.html
WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS IN IRAQ? After the upheaval in the U.S. political landscape, America faces dramatic, challenging decisions By Bob Deans Cox Washington Bureau Published on: 11/10/06 Washington ---- After stinging losses in Tuesday's elections and Wednesday's unexpected resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the Bush administration is considering all its options in Iraq. Some recommendations probably will be revealed next week when President Bush meets with former Secretary of State James Baker and former House International Relations Committee Chairman Lee Hamilton, co-chairmen of the independent Iraq Study Group. Baker and Hamilton lead a team that has studied the issue since March. One of the group's most active members is Robert Gates, tapped by Bush to be the next secretary of defense, replacing Rumsfeld, chief architect of Iraq war strategy. While no formal report is expected next week, a range of options is already taking shape. Whatever the study group recommends, Gates will soon be in a position to implement its key features. Here's a look at some options: OPTION ONE: STAY THE COURSE When U.S. troops come home: Unknown. With enough time and resources, advocates of this option maintain, U.S. forces can win in Iraq. The idea is to hold the country together and stave off civil war long enough for the elected Iraqi government to effectively organize the country and subdue insurgents. Pros: Holds out the possibility that Iraqi government might one day assume control. Success could enhance U.S. influence in the region. Cons: Many observers doubt this approach can succeed. U.S. losses would continue to mount, and U.S. credibility and influence would suffer worldwide. OPTION TWO: MAINTAIN THE GOAL, SHIFT TACTICS When U.S. troops come home: 24-36 months. Under this strategy, U.S. troops continue to assist Iraqi security forces, but with hard deadlines by which time Iraqis must assume responsibility. Pros: Sets a rough timetable for bringing U.S. forces home. Makes clear to Iraqi leaders the benchmarks they're expected to meet in securing the country. Cons: Enables Iraqi insurgents to gauge their efforts according to a set schedule. Insurgents could wait until U.S. forces pull back and then strike at less-capable Iraqi forces. A timetable could undermine the morale of U.S. troops in Iraq who remain in harm's way while the clock ticks down to withdrawal. OPTION THREE: INCREASE U.S. TROOP LEVELS When U.S. troops come home: Unknown. Many U.S. commanders in Iraq say they have always lacked the manpower needed to fully secure the country. Now, with 149,000 U.S. troops there, a recent focus on securing Baghdad has led to increased U.S. casualties and limited gains against insurgents. Another 10,000 to 50,000 U.S. ground troops could tip the scale, some analysts say. Pros: More troops could help ferret out insurgents and speed training of Iraqi forces, bringing closer the day when Americans could hand over the task of securing the country to Iraqi police and soldiers. Cons: Unless this approach is part of some innovative new strategy, the danger is that many Americans would see it as simply an escalation of U.S. involvement in a doomed mission. In Iraq, an increased U.S. troop presence could reinforce fears of a long-term American occupation . At the Pentagon, coming up with additional troops could be tough. OPTION FOUR: WITHDRAW U.S. FORCES BY NEXT YEAR When U.S. troops come home: By Dec. 31, 2007. Advocated by Sen. Joseph Biden, the Delaware Democrat soon to become chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, this approach sets a hard deadline for the redeployment of most U.S. troops, leaving behind a limited contingent. Pros: Begins the process of getting the United States out of Iraq in a concrete way, with a defined endpoint. Cons: A premature U.S. withdrawal could send Iraq into a tailspin, with the country plunging into a civil war that could lead to Iraq's breakup into Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish cantons. A failed state in Iraq ---- or any part of it ---- might then become a haven for al-Qaida or related terrorist groups and a base for efforts to destabilize much of the region. OPTION FIVE: GET TROOPS HOME IMMEDIATELY When U.S. troops come home: Within six months. There's no such thing as an immediate pullout. Logistically, U.S. forces could board their vehicles and bail out within 96 hours. They'd likely leave chaos in their wake. In reality, an "immediate withdrawal" would mean an orderly departure that would take three to six months in a process of handing over forward bases and other military facilities to Iraqi security forces. Pros: Caps U.S. losses and brings an end to an unpopular war that has become a recruiting tool for terrorist groups. Cons: High risk of increased violence, raising the prospect of a failed state in a strategic region where anti-American sentiments run high. OPTION SIX: PARTITION When U.S. troops come home: Unclear. Blood rivalries between Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis lie beneath much of the violence roiling Iraq. Some analysts suggest that the only way to settle Iraq is by separating the major factions ---- Sunni, Shiites and ethnic Kurds ---- through governance that rests on strong provincial rule and a very weak central government in Baghdad, or through formal partition into separate states. Pros: Separating Croats, Muslims and Serbs helped end nearly three years of bloodshed in Bosnia-Herzegovina a decade ago. If properly structured, administered and enforced, it could, proponents say, do the same for Iraq. Cons: Some analysts fear it would lead to further destabilization of the region, as southern Shiites align themselves with neighboring Iran; Sunnis make common cause with Syria; and Kurds go their own way, perhaps encouraging Kurds in neighboring Turkey to agitate for a breakaway from that country. +++ -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
