Remember last week when the Pentagon resisted efforts to tell the Senate Armed Services Committee about “contingency plans for the future withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq”? Perhaps the administration doesn’t want to talk about it because they’re planning to stay in Iraq for quite a while.
While Washington is mired in political debate over the future of Iraq, the American command here has prepared a detailed plan that foresees a significant American role for the next two years.
The classified plan, which represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador, calls for restoring security in local areas, including Baghdad, by the summer of 2008. “Sustainable security” is to be established on a nationwide basis by the summer of 2009, according to American officials familiar with the document.
The detailed document, known as the Joint Campaign Plan, is an elaboration of the new strategy President Bush signaled in January when he decided to send five additional American combat brigades and other units to Iraq.
So, what’s the “Joint Campaign Plan,” other than another two years for U.S. troops in Iraq? The administration will apparently “put a premium” on protecting Iraqis in Baghdad, in the hopes that some semblance of security will make political progress easier. (If this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s been the Bush plan for the last seven months.) The rest of the policy assumes “continued American involvement to train soldiers, act as partners with Iraqi forces and fight terrorist groups in Iraq.”
It’s hardly reassuring. As Brian Beutler noted, “The administration has adopted something like a list of objectives and decided to call it a strategy.”
From the NYT piece:
The plan envisions two phases. The “near-term” goal is to achieve “localized security” in Baghdad and other areas no later than June 2008. It envisions encouraging political accommodations at the local level, including with former insurgents, while pressing Iraq’s leaders to make headway on their program of national reconciliation.
The “intermediate” goal is to stitch together such local arrangements to establish a broader sense of security on a nationwide basis no later than June 2009.
Here’s a real gem: a summary of the campaign plan says U.S. forces will employ “integrated political, security, economic and diplomatic means.” Really? What “integrated” policies do you suppose the plan included in 2003? Or 2004? Or maybe 2005? And who can forget about 2006?
“We are going to try a dozen different things,” said one senior officer. “Maybe one of them will flatline. One of them will do this much. One of them will do this much more. After a while, we believe there is chance you will head into success. I am not saying that we are absolutely headed for success.”
Well, in that case, only a fool would jump at the chance to endorse this meaningful, well-though-out military strategy. A senior official is willing to kinda sorta suggest there might, under certain conditions, be a “chance” of success? I feel better already.