|
Strategic Redeployment Revisited
October 11, 2006
One year ago, the Center for American Progress released a progressive plan for victory in Iraq — Strategic Redeployment — that called for the drawdown of troops over 2006, and over 2007 to refocus their mission on the war against terrorist networks in the surrounding region. Co-authors Lawrence Korb and Brian Katulis wrote at the time, "In the absence of fresh ideas, the American public has had to settle for a simplistic debate centered on a false choice — should US forces 'stay the course' in Iraq or 'cut and run'?" To break through this false debate, American Progress' threat-based strategy recognized "military action alone will not defeat the insurgency" and that "most Iraqis do not want us there and they do not feel our presence makes them safer." Events in Iraq over the past year have largely borne out the analysis contained in Strategic Redeployment; the updated version of Strategic Redeployment remains the best alternative to what is being offered by the administration.
- Little has changed in Iraq in the past year except for U.S. casualties. A year ago, Gen. John Abizaid, the top American commander in the Middle East, said it was vital for the U.S. to gradually "reduce our military footprint" in the region. That advice appears to have gone unheeded by Bush, who remarked a few weeks ago that "We're not leaving, so long as I'm president." Over the past three months, the administration has poured 20,000 more troops into Iraq in an effort to quell violence in Baghdad. But the violence has only escalated. "The number of U.S. troops wounded in Iraq has surged to its highest monthly level in nearly two years," reported The Washington Post. A year ago, 1,960 members of the U.S. military had died in the war. Today, the count stands at 2,750. Last year at this time, only 32 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of Iraq. Now, that number stands at 30 percent.
- Across the political spectrum there are calls for a new course in Iraq. Politicians and analysts who supported the invasion are now exerting political pressure for a new direction. After returning from Iraq recently, Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the situation "is simply drifting sideways." If the Iraqi government cannot function effectively after several months, Warner said, "It's the responsibility of our government to determine if there a change in course we should take. I wouldn't take any option off the table at this time." Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), a member of the Intelligence Committee, reiterated this sentiment yesterday: "[T]here must be no question among the (Bush) administration, the Congress and the Iraqi unity government that staying the course is neither an option nor a plan." Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International and an early supporter of the Iraq war, wrote this week, "'Staying the course' only delays that day of reckoning. To be fair, however, Bush has now defined the only realistic goal left for America's mission in Iraq: not achieving success but limiting failure."
- The situation in Iraq is much worse than reported. New reports indicate the situation in Iraq is much worse than the American public has been led to believe. According to the Iraqi Immigration Minister, "more than 300,000 Iraqis have fled their homes to other parts of the country to escape violence since the 2003 fall of Saddam Hussein, with the rate swelling in the past six months of Shiite-Sunni killings." In a separate report, a team of American and Iraqi public health researchers has estimated that 600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since the beginning of the war." While a humanitarian disaster in Iraq is ongoing, the U.S. military is also quietly being stretched beyond its capabilities. Last year, Lawrence Korb predicted, "If we still have 140,000 ground troops in Iraq a year from now, we will destroy the all-volunteer Army." With 140,000 troops still on the ground, there are no more troops to send to Iraq.
|
