Thursday, January 04, 2007
More Strategies for Winning in Iraq
This article from July 2005
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/pollack/20050701.htm
by Kenneth M. Pollack proposed 5 steps to win back Iraq:
1. Build up the infrastructure and protect the Iraqi civilians: "de-emphasize chasing insurgents around the Sunni Triangle, and to instead put a higher priority on protecting Iraqis as they go about their daily lives."
2. Increase manpower: "Achieving these goals will require more than the 155,000 troops in the country, and it is time for the Bush administration to bite the bullet, whether by deploying additional standing forces, calling up reserves, or spurring recruitment by increasing pay and benefits (and maybe even providing a rationale that the American people would buy)." And also patrol on foot with the Iraqis
3. Give the Iraqis more time to train and have them deploy in formations with our troops.
4. Decentralize by getting beyond Baghdad.
5. Follow the tradition in the middle east of buying off the tribal leaders "to refrain from attacking the roads and government facilities and to keep other groups from doing so. Already some prominent Sunni sheiks have made overtures to the American authorities and the Iraqi government; they are willing to keep the peace if the price is right."
Here, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/615hksxa.asp William J. Stuntz gives three reasons for increasing our forces in Iraq: "First, experience may suggest that more men and more materiel will lead to better results. Second, the value of victory or the cost of defeat may justify a greater investment in the fight. And third, time may be on the enemy's side: Sometimes victory must be won soon if it is to be won at all."
Here, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/12/03/fighting_to_win_in_iraq/
Jeff Jacoby argues for sending more troops to Iraq: "Sending in significant reinforcements would not only make it possible to kill more of the terrorists, thugs, and assassins who are responsible for Iraq's chaos. It would help reassure Iraqis that the Washington is not planning to leave them in the lurch, as it did so ignominiously in 1991. The violence in Iraq is surging precisely because Iraqis fear that the Americans are getting ready to throw in the towel. That is why "they have turned to their own sectarian armed groups for the protection the Bush administration has failed to provide," Robert Kagan and William Kristol write in The Weekly Standard. "That, and not historical inevitability or the alleged failings of the Iraqi people, is what has brought Iraq closer to civil war."
In part two, Jacoby ridicules the appeasement/pull out recommendations.
Greg Palast posits here http://www.gregpalast.com/are-us-corporations-going-to-%E2%80%9Cwin%E2%80%9D-the-iraq-war that the way to win the war is by turning the reconstruction over to Iraqi rather than American companies.
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/pollack/20050701.htm
by Kenneth M. Pollack proposed 5 steps to win back Iraq:
1. Build up the infrastructure and protect the Iraqi civilians: "de-emphasize chasing insurgents around the Sunni Triangle, and to instead put a higher priority on protecting Iraqis as they go about their daily lives."
2. Increase manpower: "Achieving these goals will require more than the 155,000 troops in the country, and it is time for the Bush administration to bite the bullet, whether by deploying additional standing forces, calling up reserves, or spurring recruitment by increasing pay and benefits (and maybe even providing a rationale that the American people would buy)." And also patrol on foot with the Iraqis
3. Give the Iraqis more time to train and have them deploy in formations with our troops.
4. Decentralize by getting beyond Baghdad.
5. Follow the tradition in the middle east of buying off the tribal leaders "to refrain from attacking the roads and government facilities and to keep other groups from doing so. Already some prominent Sunni sheiks have made overtures to the American authorities and the Iraqi government; they are willing to keep the peace if the price is right."
Here, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/615hksxa.asp William J. Stuntz gives three reasons for increasing our forces in Iraq: "First, experience may suggest that more men and more materiel will lead to better results. Second, the value of victory or the cost of defeat may justify a greater investment in the fight. And third, time may be on the enemy's side: Sometimes victory must be won soon if it is to be won at all."
Here, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/12/03/fighting_to_win_in_iraq/
Jeff Jacoby argues for sending more troops to Iraq: "Sending in significant reinforcements would not only make it possible to kill more of the terrorists, thugs, and assassins who are responsible for Iraq's chaos. It would help reassure Iraqis that the Washington is not planning to leave them in the lurch, as it did so ignominiously in 1991. The violence in Iraq is surging precisely because Iraqis fear that the Americans are getting ready to throw in the towel. That is why "they have turned to their own sectarian armed groups for the protection the Bush administration has failed to provide," Robert Kagan and William Kristol write in The Weekly Standard. "That, and not historical inevitability or the alleged failings of the Iraqi people, is what has brought Iraq closer to civil war."
In part two, Jacoby ridicules the appeasement/pull out recommendations.
Greg Palast posits here http://www.gregpalast.com/are-us-corporations-going-to-%E2%80%9Cwin%E2%80%9D-the-iraq-war that the way to win the war is by turning the reconstruction over to Iraqi rather than American companies.
// posted by Zerin Hood @ 1:43 PM 
