Zinni argues that argues that any substantial reduction of forces would accelerate the slide to civil war.
The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this. 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.
In fact, he argues for deploying more forces to 'regain momentum' in the effort of stabilizing Iraq, creating more jobs, fostering political reconciliation and developing more effective Iraqi security forces.
Batiste agrees, calling Congressional proposals for troop withdrawals 'terribly naïve.' Before considering withdrawal, the U.S. needs to take an array of steps, including alleviating unemployment in Iraq, securing its long and porous borders, enlisting more cooperation from tribal leaders, stepping up efforts to train Iraq's security forces, engaging Iraq's neighbors and weakening or destroying the militias. He also says we need to deploy more troops.
I don't disagree. I just wonder where these new troops are going to come from.
Update: Theo has a post on Sen Carl Levin's call for phased troop withdrawals which I believe is what Zinni and Batiste are referring to as naive.
3 comments:
Zinni actually wrote a good book earlier this year called "The Battle for Peace". In it, his views on the invasion of Iraq are very persuasive but he also has some excellent ideas on America's "Power and Purpose" that the US has no choice but to be active and engaged in the world. Not necessarily militarily but, as he puts it, "deftly" and using an "integrated and intelligent" manner to generate stability in the world. Also to use the leadership position of the US to "create international cooperation and participation". I hope that the US can do this through the UN and the sooner Bolton moves off from the UN in the New Year the better for that prospect.
I think that Zinni is absolutely right about the troop levels in Iraq. If they depart too quickly then the whole country IMHO will implode. That said, the US could do what it has done before and give the operation a "blue rinse" i.e. move the UN in, move the US out and then "pass the buck" when it all goes terribly wrong.
Pip
We had a discussion on thsi on Theo's blog a while back when I called what you call 'create international cooperation and participation' the shit-sandwich strategy. Essentially it boils down to these steps:
1. acknowledge that you have screwed up
2. remind everyone of the consequences of leaving the place in the state it is in now.
3. invite all those who fear the consequences to come take a bite of the shit sandwich you have made because you can't eat it all yourself
I still think this is what they're doing. Stage 1 and 2 are essentiallly complete. The question is whether they can actually pull off stage 3. I'm skeptical. As I said, where are these troops going to come from? If the US put in 10000 more would it make a difference? No.
You'd need A LOT more troops. And guess what? Old Mother Hubbard looks in her cupboard and there's not much left. Take Gen Shinseki's estimate that the occupation would take 350,000 troops to do right (leave aside that the situation is worse now so arguably that estimate is low). Where are the 200,000 extra troops going to come from? Who has anything like that sort of manpower? India, China. Can you see either of them accepting an invitation to this party?
Basically, the situation has to be resolved locally which it still may do--although it doesn't look like a safe bet that it will. That's why I'm still against phased withdrawals or any sort of announced departure date. I continue to think that the US and the UK will be in Iraq even after Blair and Bush have been succeeded.
Well, there are 30,000 US troops in South Korea, doing nothing but guaranteeing to Kim that Bush will never do anything really annoying to him.
Post a Comment