The Autumn of our Expectations...

Yes, it's been over a month since we last entered our thoughts here. We've been focused on soliciting support from people whose voice on this pressing matter would be indispensible in any effort to make it a concrete proposition for the United States Congress to consider...

... but alas, we've not succeeded. As said before, too often the response has been that the proposition is too uncertain or that the vaunted Iraq Study Group report is finally gaining its rightful place on the table.

And then there was "Waiting for Petraeus", a long and finally anticlimactic drama that has left matters as uncertain as they were one year ago when it all began with the publication of the ISG report. Adding to that the fresh GOP-led blockade of Jim Webb's sincere attempt to put some compassion in the rotation of troops into a warzone, we're basically back to the beginning...

... heck, we've even got Alan Greenspan arguing that the intervention was 'essential' for the American economy, so we're back to 1979 and that fateful moment when Jimmy Carter winked and went with "stability" rather than "independence" as a basis for weaning our country back to economic health after the inflation-ridden post-Vietnam malaise.

We haven't had much response to the proposition itself because its diffusion has been limited by our preconceived notion that simply throwing it into the winds of the chattering electrons would have led either to distortion (at best) or conflation in the cacophony of schemes and proposals. We may try one last time because the premise of our proposition is still technically viable, but our hopes are not great...

... and we hope that something will be done to stem the red tide of instability and tension before either time, fate, or malign intent have their way.

So if you haven't read it yet, see http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dddbckfg_1c47g6j

Update...

Well, once again time passes but everything stays more or less the same...

... however, the meager response to our initial query and it's time-based conception makes it necessary to reconsider the premise...

... but it still seems like the best concrete option on the table - at least to our continued astonishment - so we've simply updated the proposition itself.

If you get this far, check it out and at least please tell us why it's not worthy of consideration.

The Authors of "A Call for a New International Mandate Regarding Iraq"

Turning a page...

Over a week has past since the previous post and much has occurred - and not occurred - that makes the "NIM" proposition unrealistic as currently formulated for two obvious reasons:

1. The Senate will soon go on its August recess...
2. The much anticipated Iraq-related report by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will be the first order of business when the Congress reconvenes in September...

In addition, the reports yesterday that the US and UK are formulating a new proposal to the UN for a expanded role for the United Nations in Iraq is disquieting; as laudable and necessary as this might seem, we are concerned that this will simply be a step towards an unexamined renewal of the mandate that retains the United States at the center and as the bulk of the multinational contingent currently trying to reestablish a modicum of security and stability in Iraq.

While thinking about all this, we've taken a step back and embarked upon a careful reading of the "new" Counterinsurgency Field Manual (US Army FM-24) that is so closely tied with General David Petraeus... and we've closely followed the debate that lingers close to the purported application of the principles and methods that he and his colleagues elaborated therein...

... and the different interpretations of the events described alternatively as evidence of success and/or failure in that endeavor belie the central question:  where does it lead?

We firmly believe that the current stalemate will endure until the next election and beyond, perhaps becoming a indelible chain around the neck of our foreign policy - and a stain on our history - unless we can intelligently and deliberately return to the principles of multilateralism in the national interest and in support of international institutions that largely guided our relations with the rest of the world since the beginning of the Second World War... 

... and this process should begin in earnest now!

One Week Later...

... the situation has not changed. We've spent most of our free time communicating this proposal to members of Congress, the media, and the foreign policy intelligensia who all seem to want to find a solution to the current tragic conundrum but who all either offer ambitious definitive schemes or defend the status quo until the reporting on "The Surge" occurs in September and thereafter.

More specifically, we have not commented about Levin/Reed and other amendments to the Defense appropriations bill nor about the all-nighter that the Senate had earlier this week. The concrete political and somewhat theatrical nature of the exercise aside, the one thing that it cleared demostrated was just how harsh the divide can become.

On the other hand, we have begun a detailed reading of the Counterinsurgency Field Manual that was recently released by the University of Chicago Press. We'll have more to say on that reference as it is being applied to Iraq...

We hope that the NIM Project offers an alternative that a clear supermajority as seen by our Congressional representatives - first in the Senate - could lead to a compromise that would either force President Bush to go along or to face a constitutional confrontation forthwith...

Catching up to spinning wheels is not that hard...

A lot has happened in the past week... other than any visibility for our "modest ultimatum":

Over the defense appropriations debate...

• A successful GOP filibuster of Senator Webb's amendment that would enforce equity between time deployed and time in "the rear"... 
• The House passes an amendment with a timetable that calls for combat forces withdrawn by April 2008... 
• Senators Warner and Lugar will offer an amendment that calls for the DOD to prepare for redeployments and other force reductions starting at the end of 2007... but it doesn't bind the President to any action other than contingency planning and Senator Reid says that that is probably not acceptable...

The July assessment of The Surge is released and it is stellar only in the sense of a black hole sucking all the substantively discussable matter out of the dynamic:  though sometimes a glass is half empty and sometimes it is half full, it certainly is not thirst quenching if the waitress takes a dirty one out of the washer out of laziness and indifference...

And the incredible press conference by President Bush hardly needs further dissection.

And to top it all off, the Prime Minister of Iraq, Nuri al-Maliki, says that the Iraqi security forces are ready to take over immediately if the US decides to withdraw its forces... though he suggests it would be nice to get some heavy weaponry first... Sheesh, what chutzpah!

We've been away from the blog while focusing on direct overtures to elected officials, the press, and experts in military and international affairs to try to get some feedback and traction... and we've frankly been disappointed.   Some have begun to point at the UN Mandate as part of the equation and a few even suggest that the year's end renewal deadline is an opportunity, but nobody suggests that the US should preemptively refuse to accept renewal of the existing terms while explicitly remaining open to a new formulation in which the rest of the world - or at least those nations "motivated" to participate - would take up at least 50% of the endeavor in terms of both national treasures expended and armed forces personnel engaged...

The rest, as they say, is a history yet to be written.

Two Big Steps in a Better Direction:

Motivating Iraq's Neighbors to the Table
by Brian Katulis ("Strategic Reset" author w/Lawrence Korb)
... explicitly calls for renegotiation of the UN Mandate

The Road Home
by the editors of the Sunday New York Times
... calls for redeployment "over the horizon", as though the horizon won't just shift, too.

Problems with all this?

1. Bush/Cheney won't do it!
2. The table is being set so that the ISG Report will be the "official" policy...
3. The Presidential campaigns will consume much of the media oxygen in these arguments...

... unless, of course, either the Congress, the media, and/or The People help make it stick!

Small Steps Deeper Into Oblivion?

Just some news items worth cataloging while considering...

New GOP Defection from Bush Iraq Policy:

... our interpretation: the Chicago Tribunes caption that Senator Domenici has joined the "cut-and-walk" approach of Republicans is depressingly poetic. I watched Senator Lugar last night on Charlie Rose and saw the same thing: an attempt to get the President to take the initiative in a broader bipartisan fashion...

Now, giving credit where credit is due... these from "The Daily Dish":

America's Secret Army 06 Jul 2007 07:52 am

Paraphrased by me: the private security suppliers (aka mercs...) and reconstruction contractors (aka carpetbaggers...) have surpassed the "official" American presence in numbers...

All I can say is that I agree with General Nash... "It's obscene" (and add that it's not going to help...).

Political Triage In Iraq 06 Jul 2007 08:37 am

A new blog shepherded by Juan Cole; and a sane proposal:

Attention now needs to shift to holding back the forces unleashed in Iraq from spreading more widely. US credibility is now very limited in the region. We need to think in multilateral terms. We need to think in political and not military terms. We need to launch a political initiative along with the European Union in support of a political process led by the moderate countries of the region to do the necessary to halt the spreading cancer and to stabilize Iraq.

Why not put the New International Mandate before the Congress immediately?