Non-partisan Iraq policy — I repeat “non-partisan”
Must read from Amir Taheri, via the London TImes (hat tip rcp). Taheri aptly covers the strategic issues and the US domestic political front.
Extended excerpt:
In immediate terms, therefore, Mr Bush is left with “go big”, the option his opponents have already attacked. Those familiar with Iraq know that the real war for its future is waged in the United States and, to a lesser extent, Britain. The terrorists have no hope of riding in triumph into Baghdad, but they continue to fight to persuade US and British opinion that the war is lost and that new Iraq does not deserve further support. Moreover, some in the new Iraqi elite have become fence-sitters. Worried that the US may run away, they have sought insurance from Tehran or, in the case of Sunni Arabs, the jihadis.
So, what should Mr Bush do? The last thing to do is to seek a bipartisan policy. Too many Democrats have invested too much in the hope that Iraq fails for them to agree to help Mr Bush to ensure success.
What is needed, therefore, is a nonpartisan policy. This means a policy that safeguards what has already been achieved in Iraq, without further provoking Democrats. In such a policy, there is room for all three options in the Pentagon paper. It is possible to chew gum and walk at the same time.
The “go big” option is useful if the US commits specialised forces with a clear mission, the success of which could be assessed within weeks. The “go long” option could be exercised by raising the percentage of US training personnel with Iraqi units from 5, as it is now, to 20. There is also room for the “go home” option, needed to give Democrats something to chew upon. Most GIs in Iraq are now in self-defence mode or engaged in routine tasks that could be assumed by Iraqis. The US and Britain could repatriate many of their troops within the next two years.
I’ve heard soldiers describe Bush’s most likely option as “doubling down.” That entails Taheri’s “go big” and “go long.” Simply increasing the number of troops makes no sense. They must have an immediate, real mission. The “revitalized” mission must be backed by the coordinated use of our other elements of power (diplomatic, economic, cultural, infromational) — in other words, unified action.
Two other excerpts from Taheri:
- Re-emphasise your commitment to democratisation by urging the Iraqi Government to hold the postponed municipal elections. The elections would reveal the true strength of all parties while creating local administrations whose absence is felt in many provinces.
- Finally, always remember that, in military terms, you have already won the war in Iraq. The task now is to translate that into a lasting geopolitical victory.
In historical terms we are engaged in a huge peacekeeping/peace-enforcement operation. Read the entire Taheri column.

I think it is going to be very interesting to see what the dem. house recomends. http://sms100.blogspot.com/
Comment by Tom Bailey — 1/9/2007 @ 10:47 am
It’s a shame that President Bush couldn’t take a page from Ronald Reagan’s book and convince the Saudis to depress oil prices so that Iran’s economy could be seriously weakened, and thus destabilize the Shiite powers in that area. Of course, I doubt the Saudis would be happy with that option but it’s not any worse than what they face now.
Comment by DRJ — 1/9/2007 @ 2:13 pm
Non-partisan Iraq policy — I repeat “non-partisan  Non-partisan Iraq policy — I repeat “non-partisanâ€Austin Bay Must read from Amir Taheri, via the London TImes (hat tip rcp). Taheri aptly covers the strategic issues and the US domestic political front. Extended excerpt:In immediate terms, theref…
Trackback by Bill's Bites — 1/9/2007 @ 5:13 pm
FYI: you’re missing a , probably just after “geopolitical victory”.
Comment by Foobarista — 1/10/2007 @ 3:28 am
This is entirely logical, with common sense quanitifiable goals and a clearly outlined stategy. Therefore it will never be adopted.
Comment by Scott Sterling — 1/10/2007 @ 1:41 pm
Thank you for this link to Amir Taheri; he’s always an invaluable asset to the discussion. I thought all his articles could be found at the NY Post, but apparently not. BTW, the “contact you by email” link on your home page does not load any longer. Also, the blue sidebar on the right side of your main blog webpage covers almost half of the right side, covering much of the text. When I click onto the individual article, the sidebar moves further right to its normal location.
Comment by E. T. Page — 1/11/2007 @ 12:01 am