[Marxism] Democrats "unlikely to effect rapid change" in Iraq

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

For a Democrat, Options in Iraq Could Be Few
Hopefuls Seen as Unlikely To Effect Rapid Change

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 29, 2007; A01

In their debate Wednesday night in Hanover, N.H., none of the three top 
Democratic presidential candidates would promise to have the U.S. 
military out of Iraq by January 2013 -- more than five years from now.

"I think it would be irresponsible" to state that, said Sen. Barack 
Obama (Ill.).

"I cannot make that commitment," added former senator John Edwards of 
North Carolina.

And Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) put it simply when she outlined 
the dilemma that Democratic presidential aspirants face on Iraq. "It is 
very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," the party's 
front-runner said.

After President Bush's announcement this month of a limited troop 
drawdown and a continuation of the "surge" strategy through next summer, 
the key question for centrist Democrats in the presidential race is no 
longer whether U.S. forces will remain in Iraq but what size, mission 
and length a post-buildup, post-Bush force would take on. Even if the 
Democratic hopefuls decline to offer specifics, some of the people 
mentioned as possible defense secretaries under a Democratic White House 
offer a vision of a U.S. presence in Iraq that does not differ markedly 
from that of the Bush administration.

"There's a fairly narrow band of choice here, a relatively limited set 
of options," said David Kilcullen, an Australian counterinsurgency 
expert who has advised Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. 
commander in Iraq. "I think a Democratic or Republican administration 
will be doing fairly similar things."

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said recently that he hopes to bring 
the U.S. presence in Iraq down to about 100,000 troops by the end of 
2008, eventually falling to a long-term presence of roughly 40,000 to 
60,000 troops, whose job would be mainly to back up Iraqi forces.

John J. Hamre, a Clinton-era Pentagon official mentioned as a possible 
successor to Gates in a Democratic administration, said in an e-mail 
that when a new president takes over in January 2009, the U.S. mission 
will include "force protection, overwatch (of Iraqi security 
operations), continued training/mentoring of Iraqi security forces and 
direct action operations against known bad guys." There is likely to be 
some patrolling by U.S. forces in Baghdad," Hamre noted, "but it should 
be considerably reduced."

At that point, said Richard Danzig, a former Navy secretary also on the 
Democratic short list for defense secretary, the next president should 
talk to Iraqi officials about setting a target date for leaving Iraq but 
make it clear that the date is negotiable, depending on the political 
progress Iraqis make. Bush has fiercely resisted setting such a 
timetable. Danzig, an adviser on defense issues for Obama, emphasized 
that he was speaking for himself.

A third possibility for defense secretary, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a 
former officer in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, said he agrees with 
the Democratic candidates that "the reality is that there is a 
likelihood of an American presence" in Iraq in 2013 but added that he 
hopes it would be a small, noncombat force. As for the mission under a 
new administration, Reed said the U.S. military will not have enough 
troops in Iraq to continue the current effort to protect the population 
and will have to focus on training, counterterrorism and perhaps border 
security missions.

Whoever the next president is, said retired Army Col. Robert Killebrew, 
"the war in Iraq will go on at least for two or three years into the new 
president's first term."

The first clue to determining how many U.S. troops will be in Iraq in 
2009 -- and what they will be doing -- will come in the spring. As the 
buildup ends and U.S. forces begin to draw down, the United States will 
assess whether Iraqi forces are able to take over providing security. 
The U.S. strategy of "clear, hold and build" depends on Iraqi troops and 
police ultimately being able to "hold." But there has been little 
evidence so far of their ability to do so in areas that are being 
contested, analysts note, especially in and around Baghdad.

"Recent U.S. government estimates state that the Iraqi security forces 
will not be capable of taking on this mission for at least 18 to 24 
months," said Nora Bensahel, a security analyst at Rand Corp., "and I 
think there are reasons to be skeptical about this forecast, since 
that's the same time frame that U.S. government estimates included in 
both 2005 and 2006."

The second unknown is whether the U.S. standoff with Iran escalates, or 
other regional problems emerge that knock the U.S. effort in Iraq off 
track. "Wild cards that could alter the present trajectory include 
escalating tensions with Iran and/or Syria, as well as the physical or 
political meltdown of the Iraqi government in Baghdad," said Patrick 
Cronin, director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic 
Studies, a think tank in London.

Finally, the third factor is the outcome of the U.S. presidential 
election in November 2008, with the vote likely to be shaped in part by 
how the United States stands in Iraq.

After years of worrying about "mission creep" -- that is, the expansion 
of its tasks -- the U.S. military will have to adjust to a shrinking 
mission. The ambitious goals that the Bush administration set forth in 
2003 of turning Iraq into a beacon of democracy for the Middle East have 
been set aside, replaced by the more limited aim of a stable Iraq that 
does not fall apart, does not engage in a full-blown civil war and does 
not spill over into a regional strife.

As the force is cut, said Kilcullen, the U.S. mission will have to 
change to training, advising, supplying and backing up Iraq forces. The 
hardest part of this transition for U.S. officials will be giving up 
control of operations, he predicted: Once the United States sets broad 
parameters, it will have to defer to Iraqi officials on issues such as 
timetables and nature of the operations to be carried out.

But if the mission is narrowed too much or too fast, then the U.S. 
position in Iraq could deteriorate rapidly, some military experts argue. 
In this view, the U.S. military only recently has begun to get the 
strategy right, by moving troops off big bases and into the population.

If the United States "reduces troop strength" and "withdraws from living 
with the population," worried retired Army Col. Howard Clark, a veteran 
policy planner, it would be quite possible to have a full-blown civil 
war emerge, with Sunnis fighting Shiites and the Kurds combating Turkish 
forces in the north. This could be followed by Iranian intervention on 
behalf of the Shiites and Saudi intervention to support the Sunnis. Some 
possible consequences, he noted, would be spiraling oil prices, 
destabilization of Pakistan and further problems in Afghanistan.

Even if it goes well, Americans may not be happy with the result, 
officers who have served in Iraq warned. If the empowerment of local 
tribes and militias continues, the country may break up. And if it does 
not, said one Army lieutenant colonel who has served two tours in Iraq, 
"the most likely outcome is a Shia tyranny of the majority, either with 
our assistance or despite our opposition."

Ultimately, however, it appears now that no matter who inhabits the 
White House, the United States may be resolved -- or resigned -- to an 
enduring presence in Iraq. "America has taken a deep breath," Kilcullen 
said, "looked into the abyss of pulling out, and decided, 'Let's not do 
it yet.'"

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism