{There wasn't overwhelming interest :-) but I thought I would post this
last bit anyway}[In about 10 days Bush will be speaking to his alternative (version 1.0?) to the Baker Plan. His speech may not candidly lay his cards on the table but, based on press reports, here is my understanding of current options he is considering. c.f. Houston Chronicle: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4390203.html ] Background The Baker plan proposed allowing a lengthy civil war that should end in stalemate with U.S. combat troops then emerging to take control. To ensure U.S. "success" in Iraq, Baker emphasized the need to make some "sacrifices": - unspecified concessions to the Syrians and especially the Iranians so has to permit a stalemate; - a reduction of the U.S. combat footprint by 50% so as to retain U.S. public support for an indefinite continuation; - a risky re-flagging exercise (embedding, training) so as to legitimate the abrogation of humanitarian responsibility during a civil bloodshed; - a slight tilt for now towards the Sunnis, so as to ensure a stalemate; - acceptance that "daylight" will probably only be seen after Bush has left office. Bush Alternative Option 1: Cheney and the like minded are urging "choosing a winner" in the civil war which in practical terms today means the Shias. They argue that this will be a short conflict [heard this before?] without the further radicalization of Shia politics and that they can find "moderate" Shia forces who will then govern [Chalabi ?!]. This would avoid concessions to Iran (and Syria) and they hope this would produce "results" before they leave office. This choice can not be too public or explicit given the reaction in the Sunni world. Bush Alternative Option 2: Hunker down and facilitate a lengthy stalemated civil war that the U.S. stays out of (per Baker) but without the risk of reducing the U.S. footprint by 50%; "reflagging" but mostly as strong rhetoric. This should somewhat reduce U.S. casualties (mostly raids against al-Quada) but will it accommodate U.S public opinion? U.S. forces would be large and active enough to avoid serious concessions to Iran, Syria, etc. Less risk to the military than the Baker Plan but much less likelihood of completion before Bush leaves office. Bush Alternative Option 3: A last gamble that the current strategy (clear and hold) can work in Baghdad with a surge of 20,000 additional troops. We may well have to read between the lines of his speech to see what options (or blends) are chosen. Paul
