What, if anything, is Bush's plan for Iraq?

Great Debates
1

The election season so far has seen plenty of attacks on Kerry for apparently not having any concrete plans on how to handle the situation in Iraq. Fair enough. I’d certainly like to know whether and/or how he plans on getting us out of the mess, with specificity. On the other hand, as Paul Krugman points out, the same question ought to be asked of the President, whose plan so far seems to consist of pretending that things are going fine.

So what exactly is Bush’s plan for Iraq? The closest thing I can find to a plan is what he outlined in a May 24, 2004 speech, where he stated as follows:

Okey doke. Sovereignty, security, infrastructure, international support, and national elections. But have any of these things been accomplished, and if not, how are they going to be accomplished?

Further stated:

There is, of course, a nominally sovereign Iraqi government in place. But it doesn’t appear to be sovereign over much of anything. Large sections of the country–particularly in the “Sunni triangle”–are completely beyond the authority of the “sovereign” government, and its power is nominal at best anywhere that people don’t want to be subjected to it, such as in the slums of Sadr City and the functionally independent Kurdish areas. So how does Bush plan to bring about a government that is more than rhetorically “sovereign”?

Except that the Iraqi security forces have proven to be totally incapable of establishing any kind of security, such as in their (and therefore our) utter defeat in Fallujah. Large sections of the country, and even of Baghdad, have been officially designated “no-go” zones for American troops, which is to say that they have been ceded to the control of insurgents and terrorists. Attacks against coalition soldiers are continuing (and, according to at least some authorities, increasing), the Iraqi police and security forces are routinely and effectively targeted, there are so many foreign hostages that we can’t even keep track of them, and the whole thing looks a lot more like anarchy than security. So how does Bush plan to create a functioning, effective Iraqi security force that is capable of establishing security and stability?

And yet, a year and a half after the defeat of Saddam, the streets of Sadr City are still covered in garbage, the oil industry is generally non-functioning, unemployment is the rule rather than the exception, and the economy is a basket case. Again, what’s the plan to change that?

He’s joking, right?

A noble goal, but how are these elections to occur in the absence of any kind of security? And given that the electorate pretty resoundingly wants some kind of Islamic theocracy (even if they can’t agree on whose brand of Islamic theocracy should prevail), how exactly is an election supposed to result in a functional democracy?

So does the guy have anything other than platitudes to offer? Is there some great plan that I’m missing, or are we just supposed to be happy that Saddam is in jail and trust the guys who made the mess to clean it up?

2

As you pointed out, Bush does have a plan-- it’s just that a good chunk of the Iraqi people aren’t cooperating with it.

One has to wonder if there is a workable roadmap to a nominally democratic and peaceful Iraq. Are the opposition forces strong and numerous enough that they will essentially be fighting such a roadmap forever?

If Bush loses the election this year, it will almost certainly be because of Iraq. I have to wonder, though, if the same thing will happen to a president Kerry in 4 years.

3

No - what did you expect, really?

No great plan minty - it’s beyond his current capabilities. As long as he can con enough people into believing that he knows what he’s doing, then it doesn’t matter. Why should he care about dead Iraqi’s or the lives of US service people? It’s all about getting re-elected and staying in power.

4

Phase One : Invade Iraq.

Phase Two : ???

Phase Three : Profit.

[/South Park]

5

Bush’s plan? Apparently a new play called “Iraq in Wonderland”.

Bush and Kerry will fill the roles of Tweedlee and Tweedledum, Ralph Nader has the inside track for the Mad Hatter and Iraq itself will play the role of Humpty Dumpty:

“Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall
All the King’s horses and all the Kings men
Couldn’t put Humpty back in place again.”

6

The plan as I understand it is:

  1. Stabilize the country. In my opinion, the planners screwed up royally by contually ignoring the festering problems in the Sunni triangle. Remember the last seige of Fallujah? The military backed down and instituted a ‘Fallujah Brigade’ of locals to take over security. Guess what? The Fallujah Brigade is now shooting at Americans. Dumb, dumb. They let that problem grow until the population became involved, and now it’s a mess.

And who was the rocket scientist who ordered that abandoned vehicle to be attacked with missiles? There were civilians, including kids, swarming all over it when it was hit. Anyone who has seen abandoned military vehicles in Iraq had to know that there would be all kinds of civilians around it. That was a major snafu. And for good measure, they killed a reporter on camera.

Anyway, that’s still step 1.

  1. Ensure a fair election takes place in January/February. This will give the government legitimacy with the Iraqi people, and give them a stake in making sure things turn out well.

  2. Train the Iraqi army/security forces. This is the longest step, and is likely to take years. Iraq needs to have an armed force capable of securing the country intenally and protecting its borders. At least 100,000-200,000 men, plus aircraft, armor, etc. And of course, it’s critical to make sure that the army is firmly in the control of the government and won’t be in a position to stage a coup. No more Fallujah Brigades, please.

At this point, the U.S. presence can be reduced to I’d guess maybe 50,000-75,000 soldiers - about the number stationed permanently in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. I expect a presence of that size to stay in Iraq for years and years. Decades, maybe. But they’ll stay on their own bases and won’t take part in security operations - just like U.S. soldiers don’t engage the populations of Japan and South Korea. Mostly, they will be there to deter aggression, coups, perhaps enforce border security, etc.

Anyway, that’s the way I see it. Lots of mistakes have been made, but the cause isn’t lost yet. The Sunni triangle is a big problem, but outside of that things are actually improving quite normally. The Kurdish regions are very peaceful, and the Shia regions in the south seem to also have stabilized, aside from that nutbar Sadr (another mistake the coalition made was allowing him to keep resurfacing and then letting him off the hook when he’s cornered).

I expect the violence to get worse as the U.S. election approaches. But after it’s over, if Bush wins I think we might see a change. One of the reasons I think it’s important for Bush to win is that I think it will hurt the morale of the insurgents who are hoping to change U.S. policy. A Kerry victory will embolden them and lead to even more violence.

The big question mark for the future is Iran. Iran seems to be actively engaged in destabilizing Iraq, and I don’t think that can be allowed to continue. After the election I expect some pretty heated exchanges with Iran. I wouldn’t even be surprised to see some limited incursions into Iranian territory by American forces, or even air strikes along the border. Iran is becomng very, very dangerous.

7

Oh, how wonderful. Two dangerous countries going at it.

But your timing is off. I would expect a second Bush administration would put the Iran war off until early 2006, to get maximum value for the midterm elections.

8

The question should be: “Whats the Iraqi plane for Iraq?”

A car bomb today killed some 20 people waiting in line to become police. Why exactly Iraqi’s are killing Iraqi’s I havent figured out yet. But until Iraqi’s come to grips with what they want, what GW wants really doesnt matter.

9

I appreciate your response, Sam, but would really like to know whether Bush has a plan to accomplish those things. “Stabilize the country” is a goal, not a plan. Ditto with fair elections in January.
Dob, it ought to be reasonably obvious why Iraqi insurgents–who are fighting against the American occupation, of course–would attack Iraqis who are acting in service of the American occupation.

10

Hope is not a plan.

Things have gotten worse, not better, in Iraq, despite our best efforts.

Remember last summer when the Admin spokesmen were telling us that the violence in Iraqi cities was no worse than that in the inner cities of Los Angeles or Detroit?

Sure, it was a lie then, but at least it had some pretensions of being a semi-plausible lie. Can you imagine the ridicule that would ensue - from all quarters - if someone should make that claim now?

At this time last year, our problems were pretty much limited to the Sunni Triangle. There was violence elsewhere, but the Kurds were on our side, and the Shi’ites were content to wait for democracy and majority rule to deal them the good cards.

Now the whole country’s dangerous.

More US troops got killed this April than last. Ditto for the Coalition as a whole.
More US troops got killed this May than last. Ditto for the Coalition as a whole.
More US troops got killed this June than last. Ditto for the Coalition as a whole.
More US troops got killed this July than last. Ditto for the Coalition as a whole.
More US troops got killed this August than last. Ditto for the Coalition as a whole.
More US troops got killed this September than last. Ditto for the Coalition as a whole. And September’s not even half over.

We’ve lost more troops since the handover on June 28 than we did during the combat phase. By a hefty margin, too. Ditto the Coalition.

We’ve lost more troops in Iraq so far in 2004 than in all of 2003 - in a month’s less time. That’ll be true for the Coalition as a whole in just a few days, the way things are (pro?)gressing.

207 U.S. troops got killed before Bush said, “Bring 'em on.” 807 (and counting) have been killed since. Way to show 'em, Mr. President. :frowning:

Now, where are the measures that things are getting more stable over there?

11

After the election, Sam? I see a possibility of military action in October, if Bush’s polls look squishy.

12

Wow, I remember that policy back when it was called Vietnamization - only back then there were troops with real battle experience. Brilliant plan, Sam, just brilliant. I can’t wait until President AWOL puts his two hands up in V’s - then we’ll really know where we are.

That might happen to begin with to test him. But in the long run it won’t make any difference, because they know the Bushies don’t have a clue what to do. David Brooks column today basically said that we’re screwed with a hardline approach and screwed with a gradualist approach - except he won’t admit that Bush f*cked up, of course.

You sound just like Douglas MacArthur. What if they hit back in force? Our troops are already extended, we would have an unprotected rear from insurgents attacking, and the whole Moslem world will rise up. Brilliant plan. The scary thing is, I wouldn’t be surprised if those geniuses are thinking that right now.

13

That one’s obvious. With every police candidate they kill, they are probably keeping 20 from signing up, and lowering the quality of the ones that do.

It’s really depressing when a bunch of insurgents have twice the brains of the cretins in Washington running this war.

14

Bush’s Iraq Plan

  1. Invade Iraq.
  2. Toss out that mean ol’ Saddam for Dad.
  3. Grab the oil, grab the $$$
  4. Run like hell, and leave the mess for someone else to clean up.

A tad on the unscrupulous side, perhaps. But when you’re willing to lie about WMDs to start a war, you don’t have time to deal with small annoying problems like a conscience.

15

Bush keeps saying “stay the course”… so I guess he thinks he has a plan.

Regarding previous posts… I think Bush lost Iraq even before he invaded. International consensus would have gone a long way to defusing tension and iraqi nationalism. Arab troops in the coalition would have made peacekeeping that much easier.

After that Iraq had interim govt. head for what ? 2 months ? Washington squabbling meant things got worse instead of better in those critical first months. Lack of plan from the beggining.

 As the elections get closer they will try to keep the insurgents down as much as possible... again politics being more important than helping create a better Iraq. 

Insurgents are mindful of US politics for sure... but Kerry being elected opens a new chance to defuse iraqi nationalism and pride. Though Kerry won't be thought of as a "friend"... he most certainly isn't Bush. Insurgents can quit without appearing to be conceding to americans... or not. Some hard core like the beheading guy will continue even if others don't.
16

Not much in the way of a Bush plan so far, I see. Seriously, do any of the resident conservatives know whether the current administration has an actual plan to transform Iraq into the shining beacon of freedon and democracy that we were (and still are) assured would result from this war? Or at least for cutting our losses and trying to minimize the likelihood of regional disaster? Anything?

My curiosity is pretty strong here because my opposition to the war was based primarily on my personal, pre-war assessment that the political, cultural, and theological barriers to forming a stable Iraq–much less a free and democratic country–were likely to be insurmountable. Now that the promised flowers in the street have all been relegated to the dustbin, I’d like to know whether Bush & Co. have the slightest idea how to go about overcoming those barriers. Unfortunately, they appear to be dead set on draining the treasury and wasting the lives and limbs of our soldiers to no purpose other than idiotic platitudes for the campaign trail.

I would, of course, also like to see Kerry get specific about how he’d clean up the mess. But I’ll cut him a little more slack since he’s not yet in a position to run our foreign policy, and he at least recognizes that the present situation is a gigantic cock-up.

17

Minty Green,

I should add that to be fair to Iraqis… they might even desire a democratic country and it wasn’t impossible… only hard to get that done. The problem also is a bunch of despotic neighbors who have no interest in seeing a peaceful Iraq. For two reasons: It would be a US puppet anyway… and US troops would be freed to do other “Freedom Wars”. Plus they want to hold as much sway as possible over the new Iraqi governors.

I don’t blame Iran for inciting violence in Iraq if they are doing some of it… it makes a lot of sense to them. After all does Bush expect to call countries “Axis of Evil” and then have them to play nice while Bush plays colonial master ? Of course not. While the insurgency keeps the US army busy all the neighbors are free of the menace of invasion.

The US did the same thing with their cold war opponents... feeding fighting in Afghanistan in order to hurt soviet interests... why should Iran be different ? Not taking that into account was silly.
18

Updates from Bush’s Iraq “plan”:

Audit shows $8.8 billion in Iraq funds missing

State Department seeks to shift $3.5 billion in Iraq funds

19

It’s working so well, too:

When you’re under siege, you’ve obviously lost the initiative.

It’ll be tough to ‘ensure’ anything like that, as we lose the ability to enter certain cities more than briefly. And that’s been happening, particularly in western Iraq. Fallujah, Ramadi, Samarra, Tal’Afar…we can’t go there anymore. Hell, we can barely operate in Baghdad. Hope is not a plan.

Here’s an update on police recruiting:

F911, Iraqi version.

If this is how our plan is working out, then once again, hope is not a plan.

Why? The insurgents have been doing quite well against Team Bush. Why should it hurt their morale if they get to keep on beating up on the same clowns?

Actually, I doubt that very many of the insurgents give a flip about our elections. They’re in Iraq because it’s where they live. We’re in Iraq because we’re stupid. Ultimately, this will play out the way all colonial adventures play out: we’ll get tired of getting beat up and leave; they’ll stay, and win.

20

Even some of thehardest-core Republicans are ticked off about it: