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?

Last Minute Comment on Independence Day...

We hesitated inserting a comment related to the specifics of the Iraq conflict on this national holiday... but we succumbed to the temptation after hearing the standard excessive rhetoric of President Bush in West Virginia while he posed in front of the courageous men and women who have given so much during these past years whether they agreed with the President or not, reiterating the message that "Nothing less than victory and success in Iraq is acceptable!"...

... and the conclusion we reached late in the day is that concrete alternatives to the current course of action will fall on deaf ears until either a catastrophe creates a tactical fait accompli, a new president in 2009 tries a "peace with honor" strategy, or - as seems more and more likely under pressures from the GOP and the military itself - the Bush administration tries to finesse a limited redeployment and drawdown as a self-designated testimonial to a "succeeding surge".

Our proposal may not be perfect, but it is concrete and immediate in its applicability...

Senator Lugar speaks out

Watching Senator Richard Lugar on "Face The Nation" on Sunday morning:

1) His assumptions/presumptions that led to his "historic" break with the President over Iraq:

1. The Iraqis are not moving concretely towards the reconciliation measures that are supposedly sufficient to stem off the insurgent movements...
2. Even if "The Surge" works (or is working for now) in creating space and time for (a), there is not enough time for the Iraqis to get their act(s) together...
3. The ground forces of the United States (Army, Marines - active duty, reserves, and National Guard) are close to broken and cannot fulfill their broader missions...

... So as the song goes, "something's gotta give..."

2) Three point "program":

1. More diplomacy, permanent and especially regional...
2. Training, training, and more training... with quick reaction backup and Special Ops 'when needed'... and "into the indefinite future"...
3. Redeployment of American forces to garrisons beyond the line of fire in the current sectarian conflict...

... but the central dilemma untouched is that the US is still at the center of it all.

3) Will Republicans "follow" the President if he persists in the current course?

1. "Many will support that, but not very many"... the most incredible rhetorical sidestep I've noticed in a long time...
2. But ultimately the President can do whatever he wants until the end of his term...
3. And electoral politics will eventually take over...

... so it sounds as though Lugar and the GOP will block anything that the President doesn't agree with... or at least defer to his decisions.

4) One way or the other, proposals are coming:

1. Perhaps making the Iraq Study Group report the official policy of the United States...
2. Anything proposed that is related to funding is a political nonstarter...
3. Any effort to "deauthorize" the IWR is meaningless political posturing...

... And so what do we do? Why not a 'modest ultimatum' that proposes the negotiation of a new international mandate to replace UN Security Council Resolution 1441 ?

We frankly believe that the perspective offered by Senator Lugar and others is perversely worse than the status quo. The White House is back to claiming that its strategy is succeeding, slowly but surely, and that patience is required... and Senator Lugar is suggesting that a partial redeployment is adequate to change the current dynamic and to address the underlying risks...

... and we're particularly struck by the statement that Senator Lugar has not spoken privately with the President on these matters since January 2006... that's six months - and at that time it was with Senator Warner and Steven Hadley in the room - so we doubt his very modest revolt will have much effect now, either.

What we've been reading (about Iraq, of course)

In the last few days, a number of other interesting pieces have been published and reported about the conflict(s) in Iraq... without great additional comment, here are a few that we find significant:

"A Call to Bring All Troops Home" by Tom Hayden...

... which is really just a distillation of the CAP "Strategic Reset" from a leftist viewpoint (because, for example, Lawrence Korb is definitely not a left winger...).

"Saving Iraq" by Robert Dreyfuss...

... which coherently suggests that we should "simply" enable the anti-occupation nationalist forces in Iraq to coalesce around a polite but firm 'request' that the Multinational Force leave.

"Legitimacy, Toujours Legitimacy" by William Lind...

... and while about the Hamas/Fatah split, it corroborates the view of Dreyfuss for Iraq.

"Understanding Current Operations in Iraq" by David Kilcullen...

... honest, sober, determined, but realistic (in other words, hopeful yet inherently uncertain... and the "honest" part is frankly a presumption offered magnanimously to those with their lives on the line whether they still believe in "the mission" or not).

Aside in closing: we haven't really launched this blog yet but are discouraged by an atmosphere that increasing accepts "waiting until 2009"... Speaker Pelosi may bring Iraq into the defense appropriations process and Senator Webb is returning troop rotations into the calculus of sustainability, but the general sense seems to be that nothing can be done with Messieurs Bush and Cheney in unmitigated control of the military and diplomatic processes...

... and all one needs to do to measure the notion that "Iraq" is passé in the mentality of our political elites is to inspect the program for the Aspen Institute seminars that begin on Monday and you'll see that "Iraq" appears just once, with a panel discussion between Lee Hamilton and General Jack Keane that is moderated by Andrea Mitchell...

... I wonder if Colin Powell & Co. can keep their fingers and toes crossed for eighteen months?

A "Strategic Reset"?

There is a lot to be said for this vision, but so much of it presumes a flexible Bush administration and a susceptible community of international partners that we continue to feel it is putting the cart before the horse if the fundamental legitimacy of any constructive path can be laid that would incorporate the three necessary elements implied below

• the withdrawal of U.S. military and political influences from the center of the Iraqi political conflict...
• the isolation and marginalization of the most incorrigible and violent participants in the conflict...
• the constructive involvement of regional actors as well as a more diverse set of global powers and institutions

Just as the Iraq Study Group proposals would have been a huge step forward if embraced wholeheartedly at the time of their promulgation, this proposal is valuable but misses the point: the timing is such that another meaningless renewal of the current UN Mandate, whatever cosmetic changes it might contain, would simply undermine the legitimacy of any international involvement in the future of the Iraqi tragedy while doing nothing to propose a concrete exit strategy for either the U.S., its allies, or even for its adversaries who will still be there long after the U.S. has left.

We simply wish to suggest that the urgent search for a truly different international mandate for Iraq would be a catalyst toward a more positive set of options...

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

from the Center for American Progress: "Strategic Reset: Our New Plan"

• Accept the Reality of Iraq's Political Fragmentation
• Immediately phase out the unconditional arming, equipping, and training of Iraq’s security forces.
• Shift reconstruction, governance, and security assistance to provinces where practical and possible.
• Implement a Phased Military Redeployment from Iraq within One Year
• Extract U.S. troops from Iraq’s civil wars before the end of 2008.
• Make counterterrorism our country’s No. 1 priority.
• Redeploy U.S. troops to neighboring countries and temporarily station 8,000 to 10,000 soldiers in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq until 2009 to prevent a cross-border conflict involving our key ally Turkey, and to protect the region from an expansion of intra-Iraqi violence
• Initiate Regional Security and Diplomatic Efforts to Contain Iraq’s Conflicts
• Promote collective security efforts with active working groups on counterterrorism, refugees, and security confidence-building measures.
• Use the forthcoming review of the United Nations mandate for Iraq to secure formal commitments from other countries to help Iraq as the United States redeploys from Iraq.
• Develop a Strategy to Resolve the Arab-Israeli Confl ict and Stabilize the Middle East
• Appoint a special Middle East envoy with support from two senior ambassadors who would work on two key tracks—containing and managing Iraq’s multiple conflicts and resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict.
• Work with partners in the Middle East Quartet as well as regional organizations such as the Arab League to manage and resolve conflicts in the region.

Action Agenda for Strategic Reset in the Middle East in 2007–2008

1. Call for a redeployment of U.S. troops and closure of U.S. military bases in Iraq by the end of 2008. Congress should use the 2008 Defense Authorization and Appropriations bills to call for an immediate redeployment of U.S. troops.
2. Advocate for measures to enhance U.S. military readiness. The current Bush Iraq strategy has led to historic problems with personnel and equipment in the U.S. Army, Marines, and National Guard. Congress should include measures to re-equip our armed forces and support U.S. military personnel and veterans in the Defense Authorization and Appropriations bills.
3. Cut off unconditional U.S. support for Iraq’s national security forces. Congress should stop training Iraqi national forces and seek enforcement of the Leahy Amendment (see page 20 for details on the amendment).
4. Increase the number of Iraqis allowed in the United States annually from 7,000 to 100,000. The United States has a moral obligation to help Iraqis displaced by the conflict, particularly those who risked their lives working with the U.S. military and diplomatic personnel. The Bush administration should raise the limit immediately and implement measures to more efficiently respond to requests for asylum.
5. Downsize the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and diversify U.S. presence around Iraq. Congress should use legislation to make the U.S. embassy smaller without diminishing security for diplomatic personnel.
6. Put pressure on other countries to provide increased economic and humanitarian assistance to Iraqis. Congress should ask for a full review of the total development and humanitarian assistance needs of Iraq from the Bush administration, a complete accounting of assistance pledged by other countries, and a plan to help Iraq garner support for economic reconstruction.
7. Create a new special envoy for Middle East diplomacy. Congress should require the president to appoint a seasoned high-level envoy who can command attention in the region and the resources the State Department and other agencies may need to contain and manage Iraq’s conflicts and resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. This senior diplomat should provide Congress with quarterly reports outlining steps toward stabilizing the region and resolving its conflicts.
8. Provide additional funding and support for collective security efforts in the Middle East and Gulf region. The United States should support cooperative security measures as it resets its military presence in the Gulf region with confidence-building measures such as enhanced border security and increased communications and early warning systems to prevent conflicts.
9. Advocate for a new U.N. mandate for Iraq. The United States should lead an international dialogue on the mandate to restructure international support for Iraq when the current U.N. mandate authorizing the U.S.-led coalition expires at the end of 2007.
10. Prevent continued waste, fraud, and corruption in Iraq. Congress should continue to exercise increased oversight of the billions of dollars lost in Iraq reconstruction projects. Working with the World Bank and other international organizations, the United States should set good governance standards for Iraq’s provincial, local, and national governing authorities.

First Post: The Premise...

This is the first post in this blog meant to accompany the concrete proposal for a radically new international mandate regarding Iraq that would replace the U.N. mandate that expires on December 31, 2007.

First and foremost, the authors of this proposition, and this accompanying commentary, claim no special knowledge or insight into the current situation or its origins and future; on the contrary, we simply feel the debate has become irreparably stagnant because of the violent internal standoff of multiple communities in Iraq, a pair of hardening perspectives in the United States that are fixed by the political calendar, and a world that is observing passively at best or manipulating the conflict at its periphery at worst...

... and we fundamentally abhor the notion that this is an acceptable status quo until 2009, if only for the sake of our fellow citizens serving in uniform and from other departments of government who are valiantly trying to finish a mission that was misbegotten from the outset.

To the degree we diverge from the obvious and accepted facts, here is our premise:

1. We now all realize that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a horrible but stabilizing force in Iraq... and that the oppressed Iraqi people - Shia, Sunni, Kurd, or Christian... devout or secular, moderate and radical alike - were bound to resist and overthrow if the sanctions and containment collapsed...

2. The manner in which the United States led the intervention in Iraq in 2003 undermined much of the legitimacy in what otherwise might have been a necessary as well as just cause...

3. The continued centrality of U.S. influence in the military and political conduct of the current conflict, and the pivotal role of that reality in domestic American politics in 2008, are the critical external factors that are making any progress impossible...

Some readers may disagree with one or more of these thoughts and we invite debate; however, the central question - whether we like it or not - points toward the future. We posed the proposition with a set of questions for comment because we want to try to identify the points of friction that render difficult any change in the current dynamic and we will share those results, as well as reflect any specific and coherent ideas or criticism that we did not anticipate. There are many specific points that we are sure will be raised - "What about the Iraq Study Group?", "the UN is incapable of solving problems...", "the US must protect its credibility of its commitments...", etc. - and we feel we can respond to these and other reactions but do not want to muddy the argument with a long and detailed proactive defense...

... and we are sufficiently realistic and clearheaded to know that there is no ideal or universally acceptable alternative, but we cannot sit idly by while others watch the hands move on the political clocks of expediency and procrastination. We are frankly surprised that the already established deadlines connected with the legitimacy conferred by the series of UN resolutions related to the current situation in Iraq have been ignored as concrete landmarks for reconsideration of the endeavor by all the parties...

We invite the readers of the Call for a New International Mandate Regarding Iraq to take that courageous leap of collective imagination now...