Actually, I doubt that they even have that chance.
Mostly because they seem bent on committing political suicide.
The Petraeus Plan. That certainly seems to be the case with the evolving plan for occupying Iraq. According to MSN, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are drawing up a military plan* that envisions the surge as continuing through June 2008. The idea is that American forces won't be able to establish "localized control" in Baghdad and other areas for at least another eleven months. Another year after that, in June 2009, the plan envisions American troops as handing the baton off to Iraqi forces.
What's the strategy? That's hard to say at present. According to MSN:
The plan envisions using locally based security initiatives, such as those that in western Anbar province have proven successful in reducing insurgent violence this year, as a starting point. Such efforts are now under way elsewhere in Iraq, including some parts of Baghdad.
That doesn't seem like a likely plan. What Petraeus means by "locally-based security initiatives" is setting up outposts in neighborhoods, gaining the trust of the locals, providing a higher level of security, and paving the way for economic reconstruction. However, that had nothing to do with American progress in Anbar which occurred because Sunni tribes switched allegiance from the global jihadis to the U. S.
It's not likely that Shiite leaders will do the U. S. the same favor in areas like Sadr City in Baghdad. Unlike the foreign fighters, the Shiite militias are genuinely popular in Shiite neighborhoods. The militias are led by the two most popular Shiite political parties (SCIRI and Sadr's Party) , have leaders who are genuinely popular among the Shiite population, and are made up of young men from Shiite neighborhoods. It will be extremely difficult if not impossible for the American military to induce the Shiite population to switch their allegiance from their own leaders and militias to the Americans attacking their militias.
MSN doesn't report what Petraeus think of the chances of this plan succeeding. However, it's a bad sign that Steven Biddle, a member of an advisory group working on Petraeus' plans last spring, believes that his own preferred "carrot and stick" strategy for dealing with insurgent groups only has a 10% chance of working. Evidently, he believes that Petraeus' own approach has less than a 10% shot of succeeding.
Suicide is Painful. The chances of Petraeus killing GOP chances in 2008 seem to be a lot higher than his chances of securing Baghdad. By June 2008, the nomination process will be over and the Republican nominee would be preparing for the convention in July. This is normally the season when the Republican attack machine does it's best work in smearing Democratic candidates. If the surge is still going on in June 2008, that's not going to happen because the Republicans will be stuck in the position of defending a highly unpopular military policy. The reason Senate Republican like Mitch McConnell only want to give the surge until September 2007 is that they think they'll need 14 months to recover from the unpopularity of the surge if they want to win in 2008.
That's why Petraeus' plan is political suicide for the Republicans. It has little chance of succeeding and it won't give the Republican Party any time to recover from the failure.
George Bush and Dick aren't running for office in 2008. Suicide, however, is going to be painful for the rest of the Republican Party.
*For all those miltiary jargon fetishists out there, the official term for the plan is the "Joint Campaign Plan" (inevitably the JCP).
Posts
22 comments:
Dr. C, have you read Peter Galbraith's book? I just got it from the library and it is a stirring read.
No, but I did see Galbreath's Salon article. It was an excellent piece of work, about the only thing I've ever called a must-read.
I followed your link to it and it's why I got the book. It's not terribly long (200 pages or so). The two chapter were wonderful.
What is the name of this book of which you all are speaking? It sounds quite good from what I have read here.
I'm assuming timb is referring to "The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End" It was the only book I could find by him. Hope that helps you Todd.
I see. I must look into it. Is the book Scott mentioned here the one to which you guys were referring Ric?
That's the one!
Two things must be said about Mr./Dr. Galbraith. First, he is an unabashed lover of the Kurds (no crime in that) and supports an independent state for them, which means breaking up Iraq. I'm not particularly fond of that concept.
Secondly, as an unabashed lover of the Kurds, he supported the initial invasion (which I did not). To me, the argument about who was right and who was wrong is rapidly losing interest (which, since I was right, is odd for me), and I am more concerned about finding a "solution." For that, so far, "The End of Iraq" is a great read.
Wow, if I didn't know any better I'd think you were rooting for Petraeus to fail. That couldn't be, right?! You want America to succeed, right?!
I sure hope your extreme political positions haven't made it so that you root against a victory in Iraq.
But then, what can be inferred from someone tying "republican suicide" and "iraq war failure" together. Hmmmm....
Cue the part where you deride me for questioning your patriotism.
Good day!
If the surge had ever had much of a chance of succeeding, that might be a consideration. Because the surge has so little chance of success, speculating about the consequences of its failure is quite reasonable. You can bet that Republican congressional leaders speculate about the failure of the surge on a daily basis.
You must not be aware, there is ample evidence that the surge is indeed working. We are routing AQ over there right now. Try taking the word from a guy who is in the thick of it, rather than the from the liberal playbook. Like this guy, for example:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/
Will you be depressed when you learn of (or accept) the success of the surge? Why, that would set the liberal surrender campaign back, jeez, at least a couple weeks.
Yeah, Ric, Mike Yon is at the thick of it in the middle of a brigade headquarters and being shown around by press officers. He knows EXACTLY what the US Army wants him to know.
On a different note, of the 18 benchmarks the US set for Iraq, 8 were met and the surge's "space for political negotiations" has resulted in no progress toward reversing the de-Baathifcation, splitting the oil revenue, or re-writing the Constitution.
I tend to think if the President says this is what our goal is and the goal is nowhere near in sight that Michael Yon's blogging is an interesting sideshow to the Truth.
Michael Yon, embedded with our military in Iraq, provides accurate, sometimes disturbing information from the front. If you think he is being ushered around by press officers and only shown bits and pieces, well, you haven't read much of his stuff.
Regardless, Yon has been providing stories over the past couple months about how AQ is currently being routed.
Since that doesn't jive with the liberal cause of destroying Bush (and the right), it must not be true. Further, it must be shown that it is a military cover up. Typical.
So anyway, Timb, are you saying Michael Yon is a liar?
Nope, just a blinkered cheerleader.
Did Yon report on the Iraqi legislature meeting to re-write the Constitution? Oh, guess not, 'cause they haven't and won't. The surge was supposed to create political stability so the Iraqis could make changes. Security in Baghdad is less than desirable and little progress toward the goals has been reported.
The fact that "AQ is bing routed" doesn't make much difference if the Shia can't help us end the Sunni insurgency. You know, the 95% of the insurgents who are not AQI...
Or did Mike forget to report that when he was sunning himself in Buquba?
Is that THE Michael Yon of "al-Ameriki tribe" fame. Yeah, he's telling like it is.
I assume you are referring to this quote from Yon himself:
"The big news on the streets today is that the people of Baqubah are generally ecstatic, although many hold in reserve a serious concern that we will abandon them again. For many Iraqis, we have morphed from being invaders to occupiers to members of a tribe. I call it the 'al Ameriki tribe,' or 'tribe America.'"
So... what's your point, Caric? Oh, as usual, you have nothing of substance, just random America bashing.
You guys would be funny if you weren't so sad. Anyone who disagrees with you (aka, tells the truth...) is a liar... or a bigot... or a misogynist... or a "blinkered cheerleader" (who is telling the truth, by the way??) Sophmoric drivel, alas, the staple of the American left.
By the way, here's another liar:
http://michaeltotten.com/
It must be quite a life, having people like Michael Yon doing your thinking for you. All you have to do is wait for his updates and all is accomplished for you. Not for all of us. One man's word is not enough.
Right, todd mayo. You prefer to rely on the ranting of a Women's Studies professor in eastern Kentucky as opposed to somebody physically on the ground, witnessing the action, talking to the Iraqi's. Perfect sense.
Yon speaks Arabic?
I do. How about you?
JD
JD, you are Michael Yon? the question is "does Yon speak Arabic?"
Well, since JD's away, focusing on other hobbies I hope, I went to Yon's website and poked around. I noted a recent Detroit news article (linked from Yon's website) referred to him as "embedded" and "his military handlers."
I think that speaks as much to his credibility as a "objective' reporter as anything could. He is, JD, a cheerleader, embedded with the 24th infantry and listening to their damn radio dispatches for Christ's sake, meaning he's in their HQ.
Doesn't make him a liar, but I'll go ahead and choose to believe a wide variety of sources on Iraq. You can rely on the right wing kooks.
All of JD's comments (and noticed how he stuck it to me for my association with the Women's Studies Program, talk about non-stop misogyny) about Michael Yon don't make any difference concerning the main point of the top post. Gen. Petraeus's plan calls for the surge to continue into next summer. No matter how that is sliced, it's a disaster for the Republicans next November.
Post a Comment