The Political Universe 11.21.06
Posted by Jason Easley on 11.21.2006
A super secret Pentagon panel has come up with three recommended policy options for Iraq, that just so happen to be the exact same options that the entire country has been debating for a year. I'll talk about the options and tell why I think we are in for tough times. Plus, I'll take a look at how the Democrats in Congress plan on ending our addiction to big oil. All this and more awaits you in Tuesday edition of the column.
The three options in Iraq
A secret Pentagon study of what has gone right and wrong in Iraq and the larger war on terror was commissioned by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace. The informal panel consists of 16 military members who recently served in the Gulf. Pace asked the group to not only look at what has gone right and wrong, but to also provide options for making progress, particularly in Iraq. There is no formal timetable for the presentation of ideas, and no formal recommendations will be issued. Pace intends to use the group to develop his own thoughts and recommendations for the secretary of defense and the president.
The three options that the panel has come up with are, add more troops in Iraq, keep the force the same size but staying longer, or pull the troops out. The three options have been dubbed go big, go long, and go home. It is likely that the group conducting the review will recommend a small short term increase in U.S. troops combined with a long term commitment to increased training and advising for Iraqi forces. If this sounds a lot like Vietnamization to you, it should, because that is exactly what this is.
The go big option would involve a huge increase in U.S. troops, in an attempt to break the cycle of sectarian and insurgent violence. To mount a full campaign would require hundreds of thousands of additional U.S. and Iraqi troops, but the panel has rejected this option, because they have come to the conclusion that there are not enough troops in the U.S. military, or enough qualified Iraqi forces to carry out such a campaign. The go home option was also rejected by the panel, because they feel that this will likely result in pushing Iraq into a full blown civil war.
This is why the panel has come up with the hybrid plan of a short term military increase to promote stability in the country combined with a long term emphasis on advising and training Iraqi forces. Under the plan, the U.S. presence in Iraq, which is currently 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20-30,000. The purpose of this increase would be to end or limit sectarian violence, while reaffirming the long term idea of cutting the U.S. troop presence in Iraq. The short term increase in troops would be followed by a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops that would eventually cut their numbers to 60,000. The concern is that this plan might further damage the standing of the already teetering Iraqi government
This hybrid plan could backfire on military leadership if Iraqis suspect that it is really a disguise for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. It will take months to prepare and implement an increase in the plan to train and advise Iraqi forces, but an even bigger problem for go long approach is that it runs counter to the way the political winds are blowing in America right now. It is estimated that it will take another 5-10 years to create a stable and competent Iraqi army. In the eyes of many U.S. citizens, this is a completely unacceptable time frame. This will be an impossible sell to a U.S. public that is itching to get out of Iraq.
Democrats may also be critical of this plan and view it as a disguised means of staying the course. The problem for Democrats is that the Pentagon recommendation may be very close to that of the Baker led Iraq Study group, which is expected to suggest that the military needs to change their focus in Iraq from combating the insurgency to training Iraqis and increasing security. Each of the three options has their own political advocates. Sen. John McCain is advocating that troop levels should be increased in Iraq. President Bush is advocating the long term strategy, and leading Democrats have been calling for troop withdrawals.
As I wrote in this column last week, I don't think that McCain's idea will work. As far the Democrats advocating a gradual withdrawal goes, it sounds like a really good idea, but the question becomes one of who will fill the void after the Americans have left? In the short term, we may have to keep doing what we are doing, because our other options are severely limited. I believe we owe it to the Iraqi people to clean up the mess that we have made out of their country, but it seems that decision makers and experts have no idea how to do this. These are the same three options that we have been debating in this nation for the past year, and we are no closer to a plan then we were we started talking about this. Until the politicians sit down and make some hard choices, we are stuck in Iraq. I think this sentiment is something that we all can agree on.
Democrats go after oil industry tax breaks
One of the first issues the new Democratic majority in the House plans to tackle is the billions of dollars in tax breaks the oil industry received from the Republican led Congress. However, the Democratic plan is not as ambitious as it sounds because they are not going to target the tax breaks passed by Congress in last year's federal corporate giveaway which was disguised as an energy bill. Instead, the Democrats are expected to press for legislation that would force the companies to renegotiate flawed offshore drilling leases that have allowed them to avoid paying federal royalties. The loopholes in the leases could end up costing the government $10 billion if they are not closed.
Democrats are also expected to pass more incentives and mandates for the use ethanol and biodiesel as substitutes for gasoline. They are also expected to pass a requirement that fuel companies phase in more 85 ethanol retail pumps. They are also likely to require the power companies to produce a percentage of their power from renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. It is also believed that the tax break for people who buy hybrid cars will be expanded, and automakers will be offered greater incentives to build more of these types of cars.
It is unlikely that the Democrats will pass one large bill with all their policies in it, but instead, they will pass smaller bits of specific legislation. This is probably the best strategy to take with the Senate being so closely divided between the two parties. The lack of large majority is also the reason why Democrats are not pursuing issues like a tax on the oil industries windfall profits, or an increase in fuel economy standards for each automobile. These policies are not only unpopular with Congressional Republicans, but would likely face a veto by President Bush.
The path for America to become energy independent is a slow one that should be handled in baby steps. I am excited that the Congress will be looking to expand the incentives and tax breaks for the manufacture and purchase of hybrid cars. Energy conservation is not something that can, or should, be rammed down people's throats. I think that the government ought to do everything that it can to encourage people to conserve more. This Congress has to be careful with the choices they make because if they stray too far to the environmental side, President Bush is certain to veto their bills.
I really wish they would go after the wasteful tax breaks given to the oil industry in last year's energy bill, but I understand that in politics one has to pick their battles, and right now the Democrats don't have the votes or the right person in the Oval Office, to win that fight. We need to develop an energy policy in this country that does not involve drilling under every square inch of our land to feed our oil addiction for a few more years. Someday, in the not to distant future, the oil will run out, and we have to stop kidding ourselves and start preparing for the future.
Be sure to check out…
Fact or Fiction: Week 26 is Brandon Crow recommended. It features reader Gary and our very own Matthew D.S.
Ray Robison writes a good conservative column. Unfortunately like most conservatives, he misses the point of the Iraq discussion. The same thing that cost us victory in Vietnam is costing us victory in Iraq, poor strategic planning and leadership at the top. No one is blaming the troops, and if you think the troops aren't demoralized right now by a lack of a clear mission, then you are kidding yourself. The American public has evolved. During Vietnam they mistakenly blamed the troops, now people are looking squarely at the leadership that bungled their way into Iraq.
Dan Martin writes about the appeal of populism to evangelical voters. I think it is not so much about the appeal of populism, then it is the sense of betrayal many evangelicals feel towards the Republican Party right now.
Before I go, I would like to take a second to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. I hope you all get where you are going safely and enjoy lots of turkey. I may have a column posted for Friday, if not; I will see you next Tuesday.
"According to the Washington Times, there's a revolt brewing among Republicans in the House. People are, of course, shocked by this. There are still Republicans in the House?" --Jay Leno
"Trent Lott has regained a position of leadership. He was the former majority leader who lost his post for racially insensitive commentary. I believe he mentioned that Strom Thurmond in 1948, who ran as a segregationist candidate, should have won. ... But now, sound the irony alarm. He has recaptured a position and his position -- I kid you not -- in the Senate will be minority whip. So, my guess is he takes to that job like, let's say, white on rice." --Jon Stewart
"President Bush is traveling. He's in Southeast Asia. Earlier today, he arrived in Vietnam -- better late than never." --David Letterman
STAY CURRENT