By Ted Belman
Bush is finally taking my advice.
Since April 2007, George W. Bush has had on his desk an exit plan from Iraq, built around the phased pull-back by early 2008 of a little more than half of the 170,000 or so troops there at present. Around 50-70,000 soldiers are to be redeployed to large strategic fortified enclaves in the south and the north as a semi-permanent US presence. They will be backed by four naval and aerial strike groups in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea and a chain of giant air bases, some expanded, others built from scratch, in Oman, Qatar and Jordan.
Two years ago in The US needs to have a Disengagement Plan for Iraq. I recommended
Let us assume that the US took my advice and just disengaged unilaterally without regard to what happens constitutionally. Let the parties sort it out for themselves or not as the case may be.
The US should then move their troops to friendly Kurdistan, including Kirkup. From this position they would have considerable influence on Syria, Iran and Turkey all of whom worry about the secessionist Kurdish movements in their own countries. The US could support these secessionists Kurds in these countries to destabilize their host countries just as Iran and Syria use Hezbollah to destabilize Israel and the US in the ME. This potential would give them considerable leverage. Thus they would be returning to the policy of pre-emption.
[..] It is clear that there will be no pax-Americana. Perhaps a guerre-Americana would be a better solution. It is in the US interest to have the Sunnis and Shiites fight each other as they did in the Iraq/Iranian war. It would preoccupy the terrorists and the regimes that support them. It would also make all the regimes vulnerable and concerned with their own survival.
Bush should take his former advice and not be in the business of nation building. A policy of deterrence would be better. From a base in Kurdistan it could have great influence over how all their protagonists act. It should be prepared to punish them by bombing them if need be. It should also support Israel and allow it to do likewise.
Then a year ago I recommended Bush should change his strategy in Iraq
So what strategy should America be following? Iran, Syria and Lebanon should be punished. There must be consequences. The more they cause problems the more they should be punished. Lebanon should not be rebuilt at least not by the west. Let it be Iran’s problem. Let Lebanon rue the day it let Hezbollah prepare for war.
And above all, if the US wants terrorism to decrease, punish the sponsors.
Rather then working to create friendly democracies against all odds, the US should be punishing its enemies and co-opting friends whether democracies or dictatorships. Let Iraq and Lebanon go their own way and pay for their own rehabilitation. If Iran or Syria tries to extend their influence bomb them.
Now DEBKA reports In the Middle East, America’s Exit from Iraq Attracts Less Interest than Gathering War Clouds reports
Washington sources report that on three points the Bush administration has not yet made final decisions:
1. Whether to launch a military operation to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and cripple its strategic-economic infrastructure.
2. How to respond if Iran decides on a pre-emptive attack on US Middle East interests by fomenting local assaults against Israel by Syria, Hizballah and Hamas and a civil war in Lebanon. Some Middle East military and intelligence sources say this decision is already in the bag in Tehran. Will President Bush seek to avert these flare-ups of violence? Or use them as the starting shot for his military strike against Iran?
3. The timeline for beginning the US military pullout from Iraq, the third decision in abeyance, hinges heavily on the White House’s actions regarding the first two.
The optional exit dates for now are September 2007 or January-March 2008. The latter is seen as the more realistic by American commanders and soldiers serving in Iraq.
