Sea Change on Iraq

What a difference and election makes. Not only did we get Democratic congress, a kinder gentler President, and a new Secretary of Defense, but we also got a major shift in punditry. Charles Krauthammer has shifted from "stay the course/blame the Democrats" to "Accept the inevitable/Blame the Iraqis." More importantly, Henry Kissinger, the major proponent of victory as an exit strategy, now says that military victory is impossible is now calling for an international conference on Iraq.

More importantly, there is activity on the international front. Serious foreign minister has visited Iraq and called for the US to set up a timetable for withdrawal. Following meetings between the Iraq Study Group and Syria Ambassador, this would seem to indicate that Syria is willing to get involved in international efforts such as those suggested by Kissinger (and, dare I say, myself).

The question is how the administration will respond. To be sure, the fact that we are questioning "how" they will respond instead of "if" they will respond is a significant breakthrough. The problem is that we are long past the point where tweaking the strategy or the policy making team will work. Indeed, we are probably past the point where bold innovation on our part alone will work. What we now need is bold efforts all around the cabinet table and around the region. An increased willingness to change and accept compromise on the administration's part is not enough in a situation that calls for bold leadership and aggressive diplomacy.

The point here is that the success or failure the US withdrawal from Iraq is more in the hands of Condalezza Rice than the new guy at the Pentagon. Hopefully, Rumsfeld's resignation will lead the way to more political and diplomatic efforts than military ones. It will be interesting to see what Condi does following the President's trip to Asia. Unfortunately, between North Korea, Iranian nuclear talks, and the traditional Israeli/Palestinian issues, there is a lot in the State Department's inbox. We might need a special envoy, such as Baker, get things done on the diplomatic front.

Meanwhile, back at the Pentagon, the military is reportedly developing options. They are supposedly looking at three options: "Go Big", "Go Long", and "Go Home". Typically, the bold options of "Go Big" and "Go Home" are being rejected out of hand and thus the "Go Long" option is really the only one they are serious about implementing. This option would increase US troops in the short run shift the US into more of a training and advisory role. In other words, committing more effort to the the concept that we have been pursuing for the last couple years.

I find it interesting that the "Go Long" description is being used for this option as going long in football implies taking a bold chance to achieve a touchdown. The plan under consideration bears no resemblance to this. The key to the Pentagon's plan is placing US advisors in Iraqi units as was done in the Vietnam war. Over the last year, several tactical units have been gutted to send their officers and NCO through formal training at Fort Riley to become advisors as part of the Iraq Assistance Group. It is hoped that having advisors in Iraqi units will stiffen up the Iraqi security forces better than having them work with separate American units as we have been doping. So in the end, the "Go Long" plan is more akin to recognizing that we shouldn't have been trying to run the ball with our defensive line and calling time out to bring the offense on the field to run the last play over again.