Scaling back the goals in Iraq.

[SirNitram]

Link

WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 — With American military successes outpacing political gains in Iraq, the Bush administration has lowered its expectation of quickly achieving major steps toward unifying the country, including passage of a long-stymied plan to share oil revenues and holding regional elections.

Instead, administration officials say they are focusing their immediate efforts on several more limited but achievable goals in the hope of convincing Iraqis, foreign governments and Americans that progress is being made toward the political breakthroughs that the military campaign of the past 10 months was supposed to promote.

The short-term American targets include passage of a $48 billion Iraqi budget, something the Iraqis say they are on their way to doing anyway; renewing the United Nations mandate that authorizes an American presence in the country, which the Iraqis have done repeatedly before; and passing legislation to allow thousands of Baath Party members from Saddam Hussein’s era to rejoin the government. A senior Bush administration official described that goal as largely symbolic since rehirings have been quietly taking place already.

Bush administration officials have not abandoned their larger goals and emphasize the importance of reaching them eventually. They say that even modest steps, taken soon, could set the stage for more progress, in the same manner that this year’s troop “surge” opened the way, unexpectedly, for drawing Sunni tribesmen to the American side.

A senior official said the administration was intensifying its pressure on the Iraqi government to produce some concrete signs of political progress.

“If we can show progress outside of the security sector alone, that will go a long way to demonstrate that we are in fact on a sustainable path to stability in Iraq,” the senior official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

On Saturday, Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador to Baghdad, said that the military had created an opportunity for progress, adding that there were some indications that Iraqis on the local as well as the national level want to move forward. But he cautioned against expecting quick results on the core issues.

“We are seeing encouraging signs of movement,” he said, but added, “This is going to be a long, hard slog.”

“It is going to be one thing at a time, maybe two things at a time, we hope with increasing momentum,” he said. “It is a long-term process.”

The White House has been elated by the drop in violence since the increase in American forces, now 162,000 troops. Public comments by President Bush and his aides, though, have been muted, reflecting frustration at the lack of political progress, a continuation of a pattern in which intense American efforts to promote broader reconciliation have proved largely fruitless.

There have been signs that American influence over Iraqi politics is dwindling after the recent improvements in security — which remain incomplete, as shown by a deadly bombing Friday in Baghdad. While Bush officials once said they aimed to secure “reconciliation” among Iraq’s deeply divided religious, ethnic and sectarian groups, some officials now refer to their goal as “accommodation.”

“We can’t pass their legislation,” a senior American official in Baghdad said. “We can’t make them like each other. We can’t even make them talk to each other. Well, sometimes we can. But we can help them execute their budget.”

Ambassador Crocker drew a distinction between the effectiveness of the American military buildup in quelling violence and the influence the United States could bring to bear at a political level.

“The political stuff does not lend itself to sending out a couple of battalions to help the Iraqi’s pass legislation,” he said.

Still, he said, there were some positive signs that Iraqis were interested in making headway on some thorny issues. Provincial governors, he said, were pressing for a law to define their powers. “We are past the point where it is an American agenda,” the ambassador said. “It is what needs to be done in Iraqi terms.”

Officials in Washington and in Baghdad share the view that military gains alone are not enough to overcome the deep distrust among Iraqi factions caused by nearly five decades of dictatorship and war. And in both capitals there are leaders who continue to hold out hope for broad political gains, eventually.

“We need a grand bargain among all the groups,” said one senior member of Iraq’s government, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

But with that not yet in sight, Bush administration officials said they hoped approval of a few initial steps might lead to more substantive agreements next year, including provincial elections, which the White House wants to see held before Mr. Bush leaves office in less than 14 months.

The prospect of such elections has been politically delicate because of the fear that some regions, like Shiite-dominated southern Iraq, are most likely to vote for leaders who support stronger regional governments at the expense of the Baghdad administration.

While one Bush administration official called the renewed pressure on Baghdad a “political surge” after the increase in troop levels this year, most of what Washington is seeking appears to reflect a diminished and more realistic set of expectations after months of little political progress.

The troop increase at the beginning of the year was intended to create the conditions to improve Iraq’s political stability, measured by so-called benchmarks, including a broad agreement on sharing oil revenues.

But those benchmarks remain largely unfulfilled. The administration’s critics in Congress have cited the lack of progress toward those benchmarks as evidence that the White House is on the wrong track and ought to begin a rapid pullout of combat forces.

Perhaps the most achievable of the administration’s short-term targets, American and Iraqi officials said, is legislation that would allow thousands of members of the Hussein-era Baath Party, most of them Sunnis, to return to government positions.

A senior administration official described that legislation as largely symbolic — since the Shiite-dominated government had begun to accommodate some Sunni officials in practice — but important in that it would at last signal some progress, capitalizing on the relative lull in violence.

Other immediate steps the Bush administration is pressing the Iraqi government to take include passing a budget, $48 billion for the coming year, and again renewing the United Nations mandate for the American troop presence before it expires at the end of the year.

In Baghdad, Iraqi officials indicated that the various parties, which like much of the country are defined largely by sect or ethnicity, remained far apart on the more difficult issues of sharing power and revenues. But some seemed surprised by the idea that the Bush administration would apply more pressure.

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s political adviser, Sadiq al-Rikabi, said none was needed to persuade the Iraqi leaders and Parliament to approve a budget. “Every state needs a budget,” he said. “It’s impossible to function without a budget. It does not need any push from anyone.”

At the same time, though, he expressed an appreciation for the Bush administration’s effort to keep all sides talking.

American officials note that as routine as it may seem to pass a budget, the Iraqis did not quickly adopt the current one.

Although the White House no longer faces the immediate prospect of losing crucial political support for the war — because the opponents lack the votes needed in Congress to force a policy change — the imperative for political progress remains, if only because of the American elections in less than a year.

Despite the reduction in violence, with attacks now down to levels last seen in early 2006, some Democrats in Congress have continued to press for a timeline for a withdrawal. Most recently, the House tried to tie a deadline to a $50 billion war spending bill, although that proposal died in the Senate.

When Congress debated the war earlier this year, the administration pushed hard for the Iraqis to approve some of the legislation. Several times, for example, the law on dispensing oil revenues, which are now surging because of high world oil prices, appeared on the brink of adoption, only to stall.

One of the immediate American concerns is getting Iraq to request extending the United Nations mandate. In Baghdad, a senior Iraqi government official said that the extension would not be a problem, but that there was little progress in negotiating the longer-term agreements on a “strategic partnership” with the United States.

“It’s the status of forces agreement that we have to start on,” the official said. That agreement, although not an issue until 2009 or later, is a far more delicate matter because it will frame the future military relationship between the countries.

The most important thing the Americans can do is keep Iraq’s political blocs — Shiite and Sunni Arab and Kurds — talking to one another and help them understand legislation now being debated, several Iraqi politicians said. Only with concrete information, they said, could rumors be dispelled that legislation might help or hurt certain groups.

“So far, the activities of the American Embassy are a bit limited in this regard,” said Qassim Daoud, an independent Shiite in Parliament, who served as a minister for security in the government of Ayad Allawi before Iraq regain its own sovereignty.

Earlier this month, the White House dispatched several senior aides to Baghdad to work with the Iraqis on specific legislative areas. They include the under secretary of state for economic, energy and agricultural affairs, Reuben Jeffery III, who is working on the budget and oil law; the State Department’s senior Iraq adviser, David M. Satterfield, who is focused on the elections and de-Baathification law; and Brett McGurk, the National Security Council’s Iraq director, who is pressing for the United Nations mandate and a longer security agreement. All have been meeting with a variety of officials and party leaders across Iraq, a senior administration official said.

American officials in Baghdad appear to understand the limitations they face and are focusing on pragmatic goals like helping the Iraqi government spend the money in its budget. That, officials in both countries said, could do more than anything else to ease tensions and build support for the national government.

“I think reconciliation will eventually come,” a senior Bush administration official said, but added, “That’s a long way down the path.”

A cold splash of reality in the faces of folks like Jadeite and Lieberman, who believe we've once again acheived 'great success'.

[The Spartan]

“We are seeing encouraging signs of movement,” he said, but added, “This is going to be a long, hard slog.”

"Six days. Six weeks. I doubt six months." - Donald Rumsfeld

[Gandalf]

If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.

[K. A. Pital]

Success is whatever the current administration calls "success" - the surge, the now almost completed ethnic cleansing, the "pacification" of large cities through artillery shelling, etc cetera... It's a meaningless word when concerning Iraq.

[Stravo]

Iraq has been almost from day one a goal post moving exercise. No WMD's? No problem we went in there for freedom...etc.

[Elfdart]

All of this assumes that the stated goals of the Junta were their real goals. The real goals were:

(a) milking a war to get Numbnuts re-elected

(b) providing amusement for a sadistic retard at 1600 Pennsylania Ave, as well as others who can't maintain a hard-on without brown people being slaughtered

(c) taking over an oil-producing country and looting that country four ways from Sunday

(d) using the war to loot the Treasury

(e) using a war as an excuse to turn the US into what Argentina was in the 1970s-80s

(f) dragging out the war until the Junta can skip town, while leaving the opposition holding the bag. This allows the Junta to not only escape blame for the war, it allows them another 30 years of Dolchstoss

Out of the six REAL goals of the war whores, four were successful (a,b,d,e) and the the other two (c,f) have had mixed results. So when the war whores say they are meeting their objectives, they are in fact right.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I think the failures of C and F are pretty mych exactly why Cheneybush wants to bomb Iran, too, even with no evidence of bomb programs or unwillingness to, say, outsource uranium enrichment to an ally or neutral nation in an aboveboard manner.

[Darth Wong]

Iraq has been almost from day one a goal post moving exercise. No WMD's? No problem we went in there for freedom...etc.

Howard Stern basically called it on Day One, although he didn't realize it at the time. I remember him saying "I want to bomb someone. I don't even care who it is. I just want to bomb somebody".

That was the real motivation for Americans to support the war, and contrary to Bush rhetoric about ignoring polls, if the majority of Americans didn't support the war, it wouldn't have happened.

[PainRack]

Still.... you can build success on small stepping stones.

Its somewhat pie in the sky, but an intelligent adminstration might still be able to pull something out of this mess.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Please.

Jesus could descend from Heaven and personally take control of the United States in a military coup, and we'd still be fucked in Iraq.

It's a lost cause, frankly it was from day one. It wasnt that their goals were never reached, but indeed i think there WERE no goals.

I mean none at all. Not even the kind Elfdart and Darth Wong spoke about. I think it was some bizarre exercise in futility by a truly warped mind. I mean like warped like psychotic, like delusional.

[K. A. Pital]

Its somewhat pie in the sky, but an intelligent adminstration might still be able to pull it's soldiers out of this mess

Fixed.

[Adrian Laguna]

It's a lost cause, frankly it was from day one. It wasnt that their goals were never reached, but indeed i think there WERE no goals.

I wouldn't go so far. It would have been entirely possible to enact regime change in Iraq without turning the country into a horrible mess. However it would have definitely require a different approach toward planning the whole thing, and approach doesn't involve the administration having their heads up their own ass. If the key infrastructural points hadn't been destroyed to "shock and awe" the Iraqi populace, the Iraqi army and police forces not been disbanded, the entirety of the Baathist party not declared unemployable (we didn't even do to the fucking Nazis!), Arab culture been respected, the government set-up more along tribal council lines than trying to set-up a democracy in a country with no history of anything of the sort, and the reconstruction effort headed by Iraqi firms with American corporations only providing assistance on an as needed basis, then Iraq would likely be stable and functional right now.

The issue is that by extricating the administration's heads from their rectums enough to get that sort of sane planning, chances are Iraq wouldn't have been invaded in the first place.

[Patrick Degan]

Still.... you can build success on small stepping stones.

Not when you're trying to build on a foundation of sand.

Its somewhat pie in the sky, but an intelligent adminstration might still be able to pull something out of this mess.

Yes —our troops.

[K. A. Pital]

However it would have definitely require a different approach toward planning the whole thing

It would also require different goals. Not "seize Iraqi oil assets, then pretend it's democracy we have here", but "let the Iraqi state continue existing without Hussein, and start public works to give employment and build new industries". Why would the US need to do the latter? Altruism? Holy fuck, how deluded must one be to think about that?

This strategy would only be considered if the goals of this admin had a militarized and industrially strong Iraq as a "war dog" against Iran. That's the only way.

Otherwise, why even consider improving the lives of the Iraq people? I mean, no one is threatening America really, so what motivation it has to do so? Answer: absolutely none.