When I heard on this morning’s news that Ambassador Khalilzad and General Casey were announcing a new plan to get the Iraqis ready to take over from us in 12-18 months, I thought, “Didn’t they say that 12-18 months ago?”
As I discovered more details about the announcement, I realized that they didn’t have an actual plan, of course. The big hoopla is that they got the Iraqis to agree to put together a list of objectives with a timeframe. Woo-ee! Maybe it’s my background as a manager, but it seems to me that committing to some measurable objectives and a time frame might have been a step they could have taken earlier. Like, say, at the very beginning. (Maybe that delay was in figuring out how they could have a timetable while not emboldening our enemies?) But hey, it’s good to know that, eventually, someone will write down “Stabilize Iraq” and next to it “18 months.”
Of course, no one has said these milestones needed to be clear or achievable. What happens if the Iraqis don’t meet any of these milestones has also been left deliberately vague. As we know, accountability is not a big concern of the administration. The President can’t even fire Donald Rumsfeld, so it seems unlikely that he’ll fire the Iraqi government.
Of course, the Iraqis may do that themselves. A militia took over Amara the other day, though it appears they gave it back when the Prime Minister asked nicely. I imagine we’ll be seeing more of that going on, and maybe they won’t be giving it back. It’s becoming clear that many Iraqis have decided not to wait around for the Americans to decide their future, and are busy settling it in their own way. The time when a 12-18 month planning horizon seemed reasonable has long passed. Events on the ground are happening faster now, and Washington seems yet another step behind.
The increasingly farcical posture of the administration, acting as if it is in control of the situation and has a plan to make it all work out, seemed to be symbolized during the press conference when the electricity went out in the room. (Not surprising. A recent report suggests that electricity supply levels in Iraq have dropped to the worst point since the invasion.)
They can’t even keep the lights on in their own building. We’re supposed to give them yet another year-and-a-half to fix this mess?
While the White House strains its massive spin engines to the breaking point trying to explain how, after years of staying the course it isn’t actually staying the course, no, it’s adjusting its tactics, just as it has all along and no, this isn’t a policy shift or a change in strategy, (unless maybe you’re a swing voter who might want it to be) the apparatchiks in Baghdad are doing their part by holding a big announcement of their new plan. I fear it may all be increasingly irrelevant. Besides, we’ve heard this new plan malarkey before.
NY Senator Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have staffers doing the research, so I don’t have to waste my time on it.
WHITE HOUSE HAS UNVEILED NEW “NEW IRAQ” PLANS AT LEAST NINE TIMES ALREADY10/22/06: “The Bush administration is drafting a timetable for the Iraqi government to address sectarian divisions and assume a larger role in securing the country, senior American officials said.” [New York Times, 10/22/06]
7/25/06: “President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced plans to enhance security forces in Baghdad in an effort to stem the growing violence in the Iraqi capital…The new security plan also calls for coalition forces to provide greater firepower and protection equipment to the Iraqi forces.” [U.S. Department of State, 7/25/06]
6/25/06: “There was also word from the Pentagon on a new plan to cut the number of U.S. troops in Iraq…U.S. military officials confirm that the plan could cut the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq by more than half, perhaps as low as 50,000 troops by the end of next year.” [“NBC Nightly News,” 6/25/06]
6/13/06: Bush and his Cabinet met about the new Iraq Unity government’s plan and “assessed ongoing U.S. efforts in each area of the Iraqi plan and directed adjustments to U.S. plans as necessary to fully align with the plans of the new government.” [White House Fact Sheet, 6/13/06]
11/30/05: Under a “Plan for Victory” banner, Bush “spelled out what he called his strategy for victory in Iraq.” [AP, 11/30/05]
5/24/04: In a speech in Pennsylvania, Bush “laid out a five-point plan to ‘achieve freedom and peace in Iraq.’” [AP, 5/25/04]
11/17/03: Bush said, “In November of 2003, we negotiated a new plan with the Governing Council, with steps for an accelerated transition to Iraqi self-government.” [AP, 11/17/03; White House Remarks, 12/12/05]
9/9/03: “Bush began a delicate drive today to build national and global support for his expensive new plan for controlling Iraq…A day after using a prime-time television address to reveal his $ 87 billion budget for the war on terrorism next year, Bush and his aides said the stakes in Iraq are so grave that they should dwarf any diplomatic disagreements or skepticism about the costs.” [Washington Post, 9/9/03]
7/23/03: Bush “said that his chief administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, has a new plan to accelerate the progress of Iraqi reconstruction.’ The plan sets out ambitious timetables and clear benchmarks to measure progress and practical methods for achieving results,’ said Bush.” [White House Remarks, 7/23/03; Christian Science Monitor, 7/24/03]