Washblog

Iraq strategy,4 legged stool - Diplomacy, Political Reconciliation, Economic Recovery, Military

 
-Major General John Batiste, US Army (retired); The following is an op-ed I wrote two weeks ago, which neither the Wall Street Journal or Washington Times wanted to consider,so I'm posting it ---
( read it here).

Quoting excerpt from Maj. General Batiste op-ed Aug 22, 2007;
Our all-volunteer military cannot continue the current cycle of deployments for much longer. America's national strategy in Iraq is akin to a four legged stool with legs representing diplomacy, political reconciliation, economic recovery, and the military. The glue holding it all together must be the mobilization of the United States in support of the incredibly important effort to defeat world-wide Islamic extremism. The only leg on the stool of any consequence is the military-it is solid titanium and high performing, the best in the world. After almost six years since September 11, our country is not mobilized behind this important work and the diplomatic, political, and economic legs are not focused and lack leadership. Most Americans now appreciate that the military alone cannot solve the problem in Iraq. In this situation, the stool will surely collapse.

 God, I hope Brian Baird talked to some of the Generals besides Petraeus when Baird decided he needed to now advocate for keeping troops in Iraq

It's been a mean week for this family in learning of my Rep. Brian Baird's new assessment of what America's foreign policy should be in Iraq  --  continue the military presence.  

Yeah, right, continue leaning so heavily on the one leg of the stool while failing to use the other three legs -- diplomacy, political reconciliation and economic recovery.  

I don't think we need the military presence there for the other three legs to be put in place. If anything, the other three legs need to bear some weight and not leave it strictly to the military leg of the stool.  The military has completed their mission, and should not have to wait under threat of death, for this Administration, Congress, America to get busy completing their part of the mission.

  But then I'm biased, some would say, you know cause my son-in-law is going back to Iraq in October for his second  --- read carefully   extended, 'stop-lossed', 15 month deployment while we hear it whispered that it will be 18 months.  When his unit gets to Iraq, another 'stop-loss' extension will be added to the already extended, 'stop-loss' 15 month deployment.  Both the returning Iraq veterans in our family already served an extended, stop-lossed, 15 month deployment in Iraq.  

  Why isn't that part of the 'news' Petraeus will be bringing to this Administration and Congress (my Rep. Brian Baird)? The extended deployments, the 'stop-lossed' deployments, the intention to add stop loss on stop loss - 18 month deployments?  What does that have to do with the supposed six month surge - which is just an increment measure given to the American public so they will hold out another six months -- six months at a time, and now it is five years.   How much more obvious can it be that with a troop shortage and troop exhaustion and military families exhaustion, that there are no more troops to keep fighting in Iraq and assuredly not in Iran.  

  Rumors of pre-emptive strike into Iran loom closer and closer.  My gut tells me that my son-in-law doesn't have 15 or 18 months of 'mission' in Iraq - more that he with thousands more of the troops are being readied and positioned for something else.

  Quoting the General (Maj General Batiste) again;

The only way to stabilize Iraq and allow our military to rearm and refit for the long fight ahead is to begin a responsible and deliberate redeployment from Iraq and replace the troops with far less expensive and much more effective resources-those of diplomacy and the critical work of political reconciliation and economic recovery. In other words, when it comes to Iraq, it's time for conservatives to once again be conservative.

  - Major General John Batiste, US Army (retired)

  (P.S.my note, I like the four legged stool analogy, because it engenders the ring of truth; and also because a four legged stool analogy is used in my faith - scripture, tradition, reason & experience)

  (p.p.s. -- I wouldn't mind a recommend on this diary, so if you're inclined give it a recommend boost... I didn't think it merited front page story, which is why I made it a diary instead of a front page story, but I did want it here at Washblog. Thanks for reading, and hope you read the entire Maj. General Batiste op-ed.)

< On the Passing of Karen Marchioro | New Jersey Likes These Clean Elections--How About WA? >
Display: Sort:
So here goes.

It's been a mean week for this family in learning of my Rep. Brian Baird's new assessment of what America's foreign policy should be in Iraq  --  continue the military presence.

I can only imagine how it feels, Lietta.

About Baird's "new assessment": the most detailed description I could find of how he thinks "facts on the ground have changed" is contained in his Times Op-Ed of August 24th. Here are his claims, one by one:

Our soldiers are reclaiming ground and capturing or killing high-priority targets on a daily basis.

How does he know this is true? Which ground is being reclaimed? How often have soldiers reclaimed ground, only to lose it when they leave? What's a high-priority target? How many of these high-priority targets have been promptly replaced by other high-priority targets?

Sheiks and tribal groups are uniting to fight against the extremists and have virtually eliminated al-Qaida from certain areas.

How does he know how big a factor al-Qaida has been in "certain areas?" How often have commanders called anyone they don't like "al-Qaida in Iraq?" What accurate count do we have of al-Qaida's presence in Iraq? Whare are the "certain areas?" Who are the "extremists?" Isn't it true that the U.S. military has been arming these sheiks and tribal groups? How many of these weapons are used, and will be used, in ordinary sectarian warfare?

The Iraqi military and police are making progress in their training, taking more responsibility for bringing the fight to the insurgents and realizing important victories.

Again, how does he know this? Who told him that "military and police are making progress in their training?" Haven't we heard this before? What's changed? What about the repeated claims that Iraqi police are aiding the insurgents? And what "important victories," specifically, have they won? What's "important" about them?

Businesses and factories that were once closed are being reopened and people are working again.

Where is this happening and how does he know it's happening? Are there businesses in other places that have recently closed? Which people are working again? All of them, some of them, or a few of them? And what work are they doing?

The infrastructure is gradually being repaired and markets are returning to life.

What evidence does he have that the infrastructure is gradually being repaired? How gradual? How often is infrastructure repaired and then destroyed again? What markets are returning to life? What does "returning to life" mean? How many Iraqis have recently died in those markets "returning to life?"

I don't find what Baird is saying to be credible. Baird has suggested that people are not listening to him, but what is there to listen to?

Most importantly, I don't understand Baird's newfound faith that the Bush administration can actually accomplish anything, anywhere, constructive. What, exactly, have they done to deserve his trust?

by DWE on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 08:32:34 AM PST

* 1 none 0 *



Keith Olberman, MSNBC, today, Sept 4, and his anger is obvious at President Bush for 'playing' us yet again on Iraq, the surge, and General Patraeus repo