http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/washington/15military.html?ei=5094
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/washington/15military.html?ei=5094&en=249
84d8667d017f9&hp=&ex=1163653200&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1163595829
-5+k63t98iTuZ2h7+zFIPGw>
&en=24984d8667d017f9&hp=&ex=1163653200&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=116
3595829-5+k63t98iTuZ2h7+zFIPGw

 

Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say 

One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/ir
aq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo> Iraq holds that the United States can move
forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If
American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more
limited role, the argument holds, it will galvanize the Iraqi government to
assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq. 

This is the case now being argued by many
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/democra
tic_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org> Democrats, most notably Senator
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/carl_levin/ind
ex.html?inline=nyt-per> Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, who asserts that the withdrawal of American
troops from Iraq should begin within four to six months.

But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers,
experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most
vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.

 
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/z/anthony_c_zinn
i/index.html?inline=nyt-per> Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United
States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the
resignation of Defense Secretary
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/donald_h_rumsf
eld/index.html?inline=nyt-per> Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any
substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would
be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.

“The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up
to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/nuri_kamal_al-
maliki/index.html?inline=nyt-per> Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime
minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. There is a premise
that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that
they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of
stopping sectarian violence.”

Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense
to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to
“regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would
create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective
Iraqi security forces.

The debate over American troop levels in Iraq was raging well before the
establishment in March of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group led by
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/james_a_iii_ba
ker/index.html?inline=nyt-per> James A. Baker III, a former secretary of
state, and Lee H. Hamilton, a former congressman. Initially, it centered on
Mr. Rumsfeld’s stewardship at the Pentagon and whether the United States had
deployed sufficient forces and taken the requisite nation-building steps to
defeat, or at least contain, a virulent insurgency.

But as the character of the Iraq conflict has changed over the past year, so
has the debate. The primary worry for American commanders now is preventing
the bloody cycle of drive-by shootings, kidnappings and bombings from
spiraling into an all-out civil war. 

With more American than Iraqi soldiers in Baghdad, there has been mounting
frustration on the part of American officials over the failure of the Iraqi
government to send sufficient reinforcements to the Iraqi capital, to
establish a genuine “unity government” and to effectively challenge the
power of the militias, some of whom have infiltrated the very Iraqi Army and
police units that the American military is working with.

In essence, the current debate turns on whether Iraqi leaders would be
susceptible to the sort of blunt American pressure entailed by troop
reductions. Arguing that such pressure was necessary, Senator Levin joined
forces with another Democrat, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, to offer an
amendment in June calling for a phased reduction of American troops, a
measure he stressed has been supported by all of the potential Democratic
presidential candidates. The proposal is less sweeping than most other
Democratic proposals, which have called for the withdrawal of all American
forces over a fixed time frame. Senator Levin’s plan has assumed more
political importance following the Democratic gains in the midterm
elections.

“There is no purely military solution here,” Mr. Levin said in an interview.
“They have got to reach a political compromise in Iraq. The leaders have got
to make concessions involving power sharing and resource sharing or else
this insurgency and the violence continues to spiral.”

While Mr. Levin’s plan calls for beginning troop reductions over the next
six months, it does not stipulate a time-frame for completing the
withdrawal, or spell out precisely how many troops should be removed in the
initial phase. The plan, however, does call for shifting the American
military role to more limited missions like protecting the American Embassy,
training the Iraqi forces and engaging in counterterrorist operations
against cells of
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaed
a/index.html?inline=nyt-org> Al Qaeda.

“The point of the proposal is to force the Iraqis to take hold of the
situation politically,” Mr. Levin said.

But some current and retired military officers say the situation in Baghdad
and other parts of Iraq is too precarious to start thinning out the number
of American troops. In addition, they worry that some Shiite leaders would
see the reduction of American troops as an opportunity to unleash their
militias against the Sunnis and engage in wholesale ethnic cleansing to
consolidate their control of the capital.

John Batiste, a retired Army major general who also joined in the call for
Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, described the Congressional proposals for troop
withdrawals as “terribly naïve.”

“There are lots of things that have to happen to set them up for success,”
General Batiste, who commanded a division in Iraq, said in an interview,
describing the Iraqi government. “Until they happen, it does not matter what
we tell Maliki.”

Before considering troop reductions, General Batiste said, the United States
needs to take an array of steps, including fresh efforts to alleviate
unemployment in Iraq, secure its long and porous borders, enlist more
cooperation from tribal sheiks, step up the effort to train Iraq’s security
forces, engage Iraq’s neighbors and weaken, or if necessary, crush the
militias.

Indeed, General Batiste has recently written that pending the training of an
effective Iraqi force, it may be necessary to deploy tens of thousands of
additional “coalition troops.” General Batiste said he hoped that Arab and
other foreign nations could be encouraged to send troops.

Some military experts said that while the American military is stretched
thin, the number of American troops in Iraq could be increased temporarily —
by perhaps 10,000 or more, in addition to the 150,000 or so already there —
by prolonging combat tours.

Kenneth M. Pollack, an expert at the
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/b/brookin
gs_institution/index.html?inline=nyt-org> Brookings Institution who served
on the staff of the
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/nationa
l_security_council/index.html?inline=nyt-org> National Security Council
during the Clinton administration, also argued that a push for troop
reductions would backfire by contributing to the disorder in Iraq.

“If we start pulling out troops and the violence gets worse and the control
of the militias increases and people become confirmed in their suspicion
that the United States is not going to be there to prevent civil war, they
are to going to start making decisions today to prepare for the eventuality
of civil war tomorrow,” he said. “That is how civil wars start.”



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



--------------------------
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: [email protected]
  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/
 

Reply via email to