http://www.washtimes.com/world/20061019-120324-9846r.htm
'Dramatic change of direction' coming for Iraq
By Sharon Behn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 19, 2006
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki speaks yesterday during a joint press
conference with Shiite firebrand cleric Moqtada al-Sadr upon their meeting in
the holy city of Najaf, central Iraq. (AFP/Getty Images)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The escalating violence raking Baghdad and other Iraqi cities is pushing that
nation's leaders, neighboring Arab countries and U.S. advisers to consider a
dramatic change of direction in the conduct of the war.
Leaks from a U.S. task force headed by former Secretary of State James A.
Baker III are contributing to the widespread sense that the Bush administration
is preparing for a "course correction" in the coming months.
The options cited most frequently in Washington include the partition of
Iraq into three ethnic- or faith-based regions, and a phased withdrawal of U.S.
troops, with some remaining in neighboring countries to deal with major
threats.
Another scenario is being discussed -- and taken seriously in Iraq -- by
many of Iraq's leading political players, under which the U.S.-trained army
would overthrow struggling Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and replace him with
a strongman who would restore order while Washington looks the other way.
Falah Hassan al-Naqib, a Sunni politician who served as minister of the
interior in the interim government led by Iyad Allawi until last year, told The
Washington Times he has met repeatedly with American and Iraqi generals to
discuss alternative courses of action.
"All of them have a 'Plan B,' because if the situation continues as it is,
they will have to defend themselves -- not just find bodies all over," Mr.
al-Naqib said this summer at his house in Baghdad.
Mayhem has continued in Baghdad despite a U.S. decision to redeploy some
8,000 U.S. troops into the capital over the summer. Officials yesterday
reported the deaths of 10 American troops across the country, putting October
on track to be the deadliest month in almost two years.
On Monday, The Washington Times reported that Gen. George Casey, the top
U.S. commander in Iraq, was "more sober" and "more concerned" about the ability
of the Iraqi security forces when he privately briefed senior military and
civilian leaders in Washington last week. Defense sources said he had appeared
more upbeat over the winter about the Iraqi security force's progress.
The sources said, however, Gen. Casey was not pessimistic and still thinks
the U.S. will win in Iraq. Gen. Casey's spokesman said the general thinks the
Iraqi security forces have made great progress and are on track to take over
more counterinsurgency missions.
Others in the Bush administration have contributed to the sense that the
al-Maliki government has been put on a short leash, with Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice saying on a trip to the region Oct. 6 that Iraqi leaders
"don't have time for endless debates on these issues. ... They have really got
to move forward."
Days before that, Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, said on
CNN that the Iraqi government, "in the course of the next two months, has to
make progress in terms of containing sectarian violence."
Similarly, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner,
Virginia Republican, told reporters after a trip to Baghdad this month that
Congress will have to make "bold decisions" if the Iraqi government does not
bring the sectarian killings under control.
Even Mr. Baker, whose bipartisan commission is expected to hand its
recommendations to the Bush administration after the congressional elections,
said on ABC's "This Week" that "I happen to think, and I think it's fair to say
our commission believes, that there are alternatives between the stated
alternatives ... of stay the course and cut and run."
President Bush reassured Mr. al-Maliki in a telephone call on Monday that
there was no deadline hanging over his administration, but that has done little
to quell the speculation.
The most talked-about scenarios for a "Plan B" include:
. Phased withdrawal: Under this plan, U.S. troops would be gradually
withdrawn over a period of months and a reserve force would be redeployed
elsewhere in the region.
"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency," argued Rep.
John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, who laid out a plan for an immediate
withdrawal in November. "They are united against U.S. forces and we have become
a catalyst for violence. ... I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the
Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control."
He proposed the creation of a "quick reaction force" and an
"over-the-horizon presence" of Marines in the region to deal with urgent
problems such as signs that al Qaeda was gaining control of an area.
Similar arguments have been made by Richard A. Clarke, who provided
national security advice to the last four presidents, and Edward N. Luttwak, a
senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
CBS reporter David Martin recently quoted a source in the Baker commission
saying the group may recommend a scheme under which 5 percent of U.S. troops
are withdrawn from Iraq every two months.
Opponents of the plan -- including most Iraqis -- argue that without a
strong U.S. troop presence, the country would quickly fall into a vicious civil
war and terrorists would be able to establish safe havens from which to harass
neighboring U.S. allies.
. Partition: Under this plan, notably advocated by Sen. Joseph R. Biden
Jr., Delaware Democrat, Iraq would be divided into Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurdish
regions, each enjoying a high degree of autonomy.
A viable central government would remain responsible for border defense,
foreign policy, oil production and revenues under the scheme worked out by Mr.
Biden and Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign
Relations.
While acknowledging that decentralization would not immediately end the
problem of murderous militias affiliated with the various political parties,
Mr. Biden argued in a May 1 speech in Philadelphia that this was the best way
to begin rolling them back. "The regions can become magnets for the militia,
integrating them into local forces, and eventually into the national force."
This solution would win quick acceptance from the Kurds, who already enjoy
a high degree of autonomy in their oil-rich northern region and have little
interest in what happens in Baghdad.
Many Shi'ites -- who control the southern oil fields -- would also welcome
the arrangement, and this month pushed through a new law opening the door to
the establishment of an autonomous region in the south.
The Sunnis, stuck in the middle of the country with no oil and few other
resources, could be brought along with a constitutional amendment guaranteeing
them 20 percent of all present and future oil revenues, argued Mr. Biden, the
ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"That's ... far more than they'd get otherwise, since the oil is in the
north and south, not the Sunni center."
Mr. Baker, however, has already expressed skepticism about the idea, noting
that there is no easy way to divide up Baghdad and other major population
centers like Kirkuk, where ethnic and religious groupings are closely
intermingled.
There are also fears that an autonomous Shi'ite region would quickly fall
into the orbit of Iran, while the Sunni region would be ungovernable, offering
a safe haven for al Qaeda and related terrorist groups to mount attacks on U.S.
allies like Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
. Coup in Baghdad: While given little credence in Washington, this scenario
is being widely talked about in Iraq and in neighboring countries, both on the
streets and among senior political and military officials.
According to the scenario, the new U.S.-trained army, along with elements
of Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist-led army, would stage a coup to oust the
al-Maliki government and replace it with one led by a more effective figure --
by most accounts Mr. Allawi.
One Iraqi Sunni living in Dubai, who is in close contact with Sunni
generals in exile in both the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, said those
generals have been discussing such a "Plan B" with secular Shi'ites and U.S.
officials for months.
These officers reportedly are convinced that Miss Rice has been discussing
such ideas during a series of visits to Saudi Arabia over the past eight
months.
Mr. Allawi, a secular Shi'ite who led the government before the 2005
legislative elections, is known as a strong man with backing from both secular
Shi'ites and Sunnis tired of the sectarian killings. The politician also is
liked by U.S. intelligence agencies, which were disappointed that his party was
unable to win more seats in the parliamentary elections.
"The army scenario is not a bad scenario for the United States," said
Robert Killebrew, a retired Army infantry colonel and national security analyst
who predicted civil war in Iraq more than a year ago. "U.S. policy issues in
the Middle East and Iraq do not require a democratic Iraq, it only requires a
stable and friendly Iraq," he said.
Under this scenario, the Dubai-based Sunni source said, the army would
gradually bring back elements of Saddam's former army, removing a major
grievance that is driving the insurgency.
"The insurgency will come under control as most of them are concerned with
keeping Iraq as one country. This is the most important for them and for the
surrounding Arab countries," said the former officer.
According to most coup talk, the United States would publicly condemn the
move but support the new government after a decent interval.
"My preference would be that there would be a certain amount of
sanctimonious hand-wringing and saying that we don't agree with the overthrow
of a democratically elected government," said Mr. Killebrew. "But we will
continue to support the Iraqis in their fight against the insurgency, which
would be de facto support."
Rowan Scarborough contributed to this report.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List owner : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/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/
