Informed Speculation

The big story of the day seems to be this Thomas Ricks piece in the Washington Post that reveals the Pentagon’s recommendation on Iraq: bolster troops temporarily to try to get control of security, then start switching to an advisory role.

The Pentagon’s closely guarded review of how to improve the situation in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials.

Insiders have dubbed the options “Go Big,” “Go Long” and “Go Home.” The group conducting the review is likely to recommend a combination of a small, short-term increase in U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to stepped-up training and advising of Iraqi forces, the officials said.

The military’s study, commissioned by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, comes at a time when escalating violence is causing Iraq policy to be reconsidered by both the White House and the congressionally chartered, bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Pace’s effort will feed into the White House review, but military officials have made it clear they are operating independently.

The Pentagon group’s proceedings are so secret that officials asked to help it have not even been told its title or mandate. But in recent days the circle of those with knowledge of its deliberations has widened beyond a narrow group working for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“Go Big,” the first option, originally contemplated a large increase in U.S. troops in Iraq to try to break the cycle of sectarian and insurgent violence. A classic counterinsurgency campaign, though, would require several hundred thousand additional U.S. and Iraqi soldiers as well as heavily armed Iraqi police. That option has been all but rejected by the study group, which concluded that there are not enough troops in the U.S. military and not enough effective Iraqi forces, said sources who have been informally briefed on the review.

The sources insisted on anonymity because no one at the Pentagon has been permitted to discuss the review with outsiders. The review group is led by three high-profile colonels — H.R. McMaster and Peter Mansoor of the Army, and Thomas C. Greenwood of the Marine Corps.

…”Go Home,” the third option, calls for a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops. It was rejected by the Pentagon group as likely to push Iraq directly into a full-blown and bloody civil war.

The group has devised a hybrid plan that combines part of the first option with the second one — “Go Long” — and calls for cutting the U.S. combat presence in favor of a long-term expansion of the training and advisory efforts. Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said.

The purpose of the temporary but notable increase, they said, would be twofold: To do as much as possible to curtail sectarian violence, and also to signal to the Iraqi government and public that the shift to a “Go Long” option that aims to eventually cut the U.S. presence is not a disguised form of withdrawal.

This is seemingly in line with leaked previews of the Iraq Study Group approach:

…[T]he hybrid version of “Go onge22 may be remarkably close to the recommendation that the Iraq Study Group, led by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former representative Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.). That group’s findings, expected to be issued next month, are said to focus on changing the emphasis of U.S. military operations from combating the insurgency to training Iraqis, and also to find ways to increase security in Baghdad and bring neighboring countries into talks about stabilizing Iraq.

The question: can it get past the Democrats?

[A] potential obstacle to the “Go Long” option is that it runs counter to the impulse of many congressional Democrats to find a way to get out of Iraq quickly. Planners envision taking five to 10 more years to create a stable and competent Iraqi army. Because it wouldn’t lead to a swift exit, some Democrats could criticize this option as a disguised version of “staying the course.”

My thoughts? It’s certainly more politically feasible than go big, as Senator McCain has signalled he prefers.  It has the advantage of a long-term presence rather than the ‘cut and run’ of Go Home.

However, it seems to dodge the primary concern; how to stop sectarian bloodshed, when one side is essentially under the protection (or vice versa) of the Iraqi government.  Every direction you turn, the problem is the same: Maliki, Maliki, Maliki…perhaps it would be for the best if his government fell, but we can’t be behind it…if it falls, it must fall without our push…