Watch for Obama to explain his agenda of global militarism Thursday

As President George w. Bush labeled himself as a War President, so too will his successor be aptly titled when they become the Commander and Chief.

No one doubts Senator McCain when he predicts that we will be in Iraq for a long time, that he, as President, wouldn't act to change that.

But Senator Barack Obama, who ran as the `anti Iraq War candidate' because he didn't vote to allow the President to have `war powers' as his opponent Senator Hillary Clinton did is no dove. His recent comments actually expose his hawkish tendency, as well presented in this article written a week ago.

Expect some tough `military edged' talk from Obama when he gives his speach ath the convention Thursday night.

On eve of Democratic convention, Obama advances agenda of global militarism
By Bill Van Auken
20 August 2008

Speaking before an audience of 3,000 members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama defended his patriotism while attacking his Republican rival for being squeamish about launching unilateral military attacks against Pakistan.

Obama’s speech Tuesday in Orlando, Florida followed an appearance Monday before the same convention by Republican candidate Senator John McCain, who delivered a right-wing diatribe portraying the Democrat as a political opportunist and virtual traitor for his policy on the war in Iraq.



McCain charged Obama with having “tried to prevent funding for the troops who carried out the surge.” He continued: “Not content to merely predict failure in Iraq, my opponent tried to legislate failure.”

In his response, Obama spoke not as an opponent of war, but rather as an advocate of a superior strategy for pursuing US interests by military means.

He chided McCain for “talking tough without acting tough and smart,” while outlining a policy agenda that includes a continuation of the occupation of Iraq—albeit on a reduced basis—an escalation of the war in Afghanistan and its extension across the border into Pakistan. Finally, he put forward a policy of confrontation with Russia in the Caucasus that dovetails fully with the positions taken by the McCain campaign and the Bush administration itself.

Obama began his speech by declaring that America confronted a “defining moment in our history,” a conjuncture that he indicated had been reached owing to a series of events involving the ongoing or potential use of American military force.

“We are in the midst of two wars,” he said. “The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large. Russia has invaded the sovereign nation of Georgia. Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.”

Obama objected to McCain’s charge that he had shifted his position on Iraq, arguing that he had been consistent from the start. Referring to his initial opposition to the 2003 invasion, the Democratic candidate stressed that he was not opposed to aggressive wars in general, but that he viewed the war in Iraq as a miscalculation. He insisted instead that “our first priority had to be finishing the fight” in Afghanistan.

While suggesting that the “costly strategic errors” involved in the Iraq war had not been erased by the supposed successes of the military “surge” which sent 30,000 additional American troops into the country, Obama nonetheless praised the operation.

Obama Praised the Surge

He hailed General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who oversaw the military escalation, as “outstanding Americans,” while attributing the “lowering” of “the level of violence” in Iraq to “the outstanding efforts of our military, the increasing capability of Iraq’s Security Forces, the ceasefire of Shiite militias, and the decision taken by Sunni tribes to take the fight to Al Qaeda.” He concluded, “Those are the facts, and all Americans welcome them.”

There are other “facts,” however, which millions of Americans recognize as both criminal and shameful. The suppression of Iraqi resistance to foreign occupation, which is neither complete nor permanent, has been achieved through the killing of well over a million civilians and the turning of millions more into refugees. The US war and occupation have essentially destroyed Iraq as a functioning society.

Yet for Obama, the catastrophe produced by a war aimed at seizing control of Iraq’s oil reserves is the fault not of Washington, but of the Iraqis themselves.

“We have lost over a thousand American lives and spent hundreds of billions of dollars since the surge began, but Iraq’s leaders still haven’t made hard compromises or substantial investments in rebuilding their country,” declared the Democratic candidate. “And while we pay a heavy price in Iraq—and Americans pay record prices at the pump—Iraq’s government is sitting on a $79 billion dollar budget surplus from windfall oil profits.”

“Iraqi inaction threatens the progress we’ve made and creates an opening for Iran and the ‘special groups’ it supports,” he continued. “It’s time to press the Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. The best way to do that is a responsible redeployment of our combat brigades, carried out in close consultation with commanders on the ground.”

In other words, Obama is not advocating an end to a predatory war, but rather its reconfiguration in a manner designed to pressure the regime in Baghdad into acceding more fully to US demands.

As he spelled out, this “responsible redeployment” will not mean an end to the US occupation. While vowing to remove US “combat brigades” from Iraq over the course of his first year-and-a-half in office—extending their presence well into 2010—Obama made it clear that many other troops would remain.



“After this redeployment, we’ll keep a residual force to target remnants of Al Qaeda, to protect our service members and diplomats, and to train Iraq’s Security Forces if the Iraqis make political progress,” he said. Such a force would inevitably consist of tens of thousands of American soldiers and Marines.

Moreover, he explained, the purpose of this reduction in the American “footprint” in Iraq would not be to curtail the global role of American militarism, but rather to facilitate its exercise elsewhere.

The partial withdrawal from Iraq, he said, would allow Washington to “strengthen our military, and to finish the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and the border region of Pakistan.”

Describing Afghanistan as the “central front in the war on terrorism,” Obama continued: “This is a war that we have to win. And as commander-in-chief, I will have no greater priority than taking out these terrorists who threaten America and finishing the job against the Taliban.”

Obama’s attempt to sell the US intervention in Afghanistan as some kind of “good war” being waged against the perpetrators of 9/11is as grotesque a lie as the ones used by the Bush administration to justify the war in Iraq. US and NATO forces are waging a brutal campaign that is claiming an escalating toll of civilian casualties as they fight popular resistance to the US-led occupation from the predominantly Pashtun population on both sides of the porous Afghan-Pakistani border. “Taking out these terrorists who threaten America” means a savage military campaign against this population.

He called for throwing two more US combat brigades into the colonial-style war against the people of Afghanistan.

The Democratic candidate’s call for a shift in the relative weight of US military power from Iraq to Afghanistan has emerged as the consensus position within the predominant layers of the American foreign policy establishment.

A so-called “terrorism index” published Monday by Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for American Progress, based on a survey of “foreign policy experts” (US security officials, intelligence operatives and academics), found that 69 percent support shifting US forces from Iraq to Afghanistan and 80 percent believe that Washington has devoted too much attention to Iraq and not enough to Afghanistan.

Underlying this orientation is a concern not with combating “terrorism,” but rather with US strategic interests. Central Asia, with its extensive oil and natural gas reserves, has emerged as a region of critical importance. In the wake of the Soviet Union’s dissolution, Washington has attempted to assert its hegemony in Central Asia in opposition to both Russia and China. The attacks of September 11 provided the pretext for a military intervention that had been planned long beforehand.

Obama and his threats to Pakistan

Obama went on to attack McCain from the right, accusing him of reticence about “bombing our ally” in Pakistan.

“So for all of his talk about following Osama bin Laden to the Gates of Hell, Senator McCain refused to join my call to take out bin Laden across the Afghan border,” he said. “Instead, he spent years backing a dictator in Pakistan who failed to serve the interests of his own people.”

The McCain campaign issued a statement pointing out that in the Democratic primary debates last year, Obama voiced his own support for US collaboration with Pakistan’s military strongman, Pervez Musharraf, who was forced to resign Monday.

“We have to work with Musharraf, because the biggest threat to American security right now is in the northwest provinces of Pakistan,” Obama said in the debate. He added, “We should continue to give him military aid contingent on him doing something about that.”

On the Russian Front

Finally, on Georgia, Obama stressed his unity with his Republican rival, declaring, “Senator McCain and I both strongly support the people of Georgia.”

The Washington Post reported Monday that “Some Democrats have been pleading with Obama to use McCain’s tough response to the Russian invasion of Georgia to paint him as a trigger-happy interventionist who would risk bringing a war-weary nation into military conflict in regions where the United States has no interest.”

Instead, Obama tried to outdo the Republican candidate in terms of menacing rhetoric. He regurgitated the war propaganda about “Russian atrocities,” while repeating the administration’s mantra that “Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected,” a euphemism for supporting the attempt by the regime in Tbilisi to militarily conquer the autonomous territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. He also voiced his support for Georgia, a former Soviet republic, being “integrated” into the NATO military alliance, a policy that has dramatically heightened US-Russian tensions.

Obama included a tribute to Senator Joseph Biden (Democrat of Delaware)—reportedly a leading contender for the vice-presidential nomination—who had just returned from a trip to Georgia, and went on to cast the conflict in bellicose, Cold War terms.

The candidate concluded by warning Moscow that its actions in the Caucasus would “have consequences.”

With less than a week to go until the Democrats officially nominate Obama at their convention in Denver, and with barely two-and-a-half months until the election, the candidate’s speech underscores a stark political reality confronting the American people. Once again this November, the two-party system will offer no means of expressing the massive popular opposition to war, but rather an empty choice between two big business candidates who are committed to the expanded use of militarism in pursuit of US corporate and financial interests.

Democrats are not calling to leave Iraq -Just change stategy.

I think it is the fault of the media that the Democrat's proposed `timetable for withdrawal' is seen as the US leaving Iraq.

It is not. Basically what the bill propose is that the US stops it's official combat brigades.

The Democrats and others feel that the US has no place in meddling (as opposed to mediating) in the civil war situation that is happening in Iraq. However - they are not calling for a cut and run - just a re-mandate of purpose from trying to maker the country safe to naking sure US assets are safe.

Under the proposed `pull out' measures an awful lot will be left in. In addition the private militia (such as Blackwater- see other post) will most likely remain being better equipped to do `dirty work' (they being under no public accountability) rather than the continual embarrassment when `our' troops get caught being bad.

From the Nation: How Not to Withdraw from Iraq: The Democrats' Plan by Tom Engelhardt


Before you imagine that the Democrats' plan, just passed by Congress, would actually get U.S. troops out of Iraq, read the fine print.

Let's be clear about what it is -- when it comes to "withdrawal" from Iraq -- that the President will veto this Wednesday. Section 1904(b) of the supplemental appropriations bill for the Pentagon, H.R. 1591, passed by the House and Senate, mandates that the Secretary of Defense "commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq not later than October 1, 2007, with a goal of completing such redeployment within 180 days." If you've been listening to network TV news shows or reading your local newspaper with less than an eagle eye, you might well be under the impression that -- just as the phrasing above seems to indicate -- a Democratic-controlled Congress has just passed a bill that mandates a full-scale American withdrawal from Iraq. (Reporters and commentators regularly speak of the Democrats' insistence that "American troops be withdrawn from Iraq.") But that's only until you start reading the exceptions embedded in the bill.

Here are the main ones. According to H.R. 1591, the Secretary of Defense is allowed to keep U.S. forces in Iraq for the following purposes:

1. "Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the United States Armed Forces": This doesn't sound like much, but don't be fooled. As a start, of course, there would have to be forces guarding the new American embassy in Baghdad (known to Iraqis as "George W's Palace"). When completed, it will be the largest embassy in the known universe with untold thousands of employees; then there would need to be forces to protect the heavily fortified citadel of the Green Zone (aka "the International Zone") which protects the embassy and other key U.S. facilities. Add to these troops to guard the network of gigantic, multibillion dollar U.S. bases in Iraq like Balad Air Base (with air traffic volume that rivals Chicago's O'Hare) and whatever smaller outposts might be maintained.

We're talking about a sizable force here.

2. "Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces": By later this year, U.S. advisors and trainers for the Iraqi military, part of a program the Pentagon is now ramping up, should reach the 10,000-20,000 range (many of whom -- see above -- would undoubtedly need "guarding").

3. "Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach": This is a loophole of loopholes that could add up to almost anything as, in a pinch, all sorts of Sunni oppositional forces could be labeled "al-Qaeda."

An Institute for Policy Studies analysis suggests that the "protection forces" and advisors alone could add up to 40,000-60,000 troops. None of this, of course, includes U.S. Navy or Air Force units stationed outside Iraq but engaged in actions in, or support for actions in, that country.

Another way of thinking about the Democratic withdrawal proposals (to be vetoed this week by the President) is that they represent a program to remove only U.S. "combat brigades," adding up to perhaps half of all U.S. forces, with a giant al-Qaeda loophole for their return. None of this would deal with the heavily armed and fortified U.S. permanent bases in Iraq or the air war that would almost certainly escalate if only part of the American expeditionary forces were withdrawn (and the rest potentially left more vulnerable).

No less strikingly, in an era in which the "privatizing" of state functions is the rage, the enormous mercenary forces of private "security" companies like Blackwater USA, now fighting a shadow war alongside U.S. troops in Iraq, would be untouched. On this point, Jeremy Scahill, author of the bestseller, Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, has much to say in a recent post at Tomdispatch.com. He writes: "Even if the President didn't veto their legislation, the Democrats' plan does almost nothing to address the second largest force in Iraq -- and it's not the British military. It's the estimated 126,000 private military ‘contractors' who will stay put there as long as Congress continues funding the war."

WARNING BRUTAL IMAGES :: Day of Carnage in Iraq Bombing after Bombing after Bombing

Death and Destruction as Bush tries to keep financing his failed invasion.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An Iraqi army brigade commander was arrested Wednesday night after a string of bombings that killed nearly 200 people around Baghdad, most of them in a single attack at a central marketplace, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's office announced.

Explosion at the Sadriya market

The explosion at the Sadriya market, one of the Iraqi capital's oldest and busiest venues, killed 140 people and wounded about 150, an Iraqi Interior Ministry official told CNN. A statement from al-Maliki's office said the brigade commander was removed because of "the weakness of security measures put in place to protect civilians in Sadriya."

The marketplace attack was the worst of at least six bombings across Baghdad -- a particularly bloody day in a city wracked by sectarian warfare and a U.S.-Iraqi crackdown against insurgents. It was the worst bombing in the Iraqi capital since the 4-year-old war began, topping the February toll of 130 dead in a bombing in the same marketplace. (Watch as death toll climbs after attacks in Iraq Video)



The marketplace is filled with streets and alleyways that crisscross one another. The time of the attack -- about 4 p.m. (8 a.m. ET) -- is generally busy, with vendors selling electronics, produce, clothing and other items.

The arrested officer, whose name was not immediately released, was in command of the 2nd Brigade of the Iraqi army's 2nd Division, and will face an investigative committee looking into the bombings.

In all, bombings around the capital killed 198 people, the Interior Ministry reported.

Also an Iraqi Army checkpoint bombing killed 35

In addition to the Sadriya attack, a suicide car bombing killed 35 people and wounded 55 near an Iraqi Army checkpoint at one of the entrances to Sadr City.

Also in the Iraqi Karrada district bombing killed 11

Another bomb blast in central Baghdad's Karrada district killed 11 people and wounded 13, while bombs targeting police patrols in southern and southwestern Baghdad killed six police officers and two civilians, while wounding 14 people.

Also in the Iraqi Rusafi Square bombing killed 4

Another four civilians were killed when a bomb planted in a minibus detonated in Rusafi Square, a busy intersection in central Baghdad, the Iraqi Interior Ministry reported. Nine people were wounded.

Transfer of Security of Mayasan Province

The attacks occurred the same day British commanders transferred security control over the southern province of Maysan to Iraqi troops, a sign that Iraq is taking another step toward self-reliance. But the Baghdad blasts reflects the stiff challenges posed by what has been a resilient insurgency.


In Washington, Adm. William Fallon, the chief of U.S. forces in the Middle East, told a congressional committee that while he sees optimistic developments in Iraq, "there is hardly a week that goes by, certainly almost a day that doesn't go by without some major event that also causes us to lose ground."

Fallon told the House Armed Services Committee in Washington that the Baghdad security crackdown "is really the Iraqi leadership's major and potentially last opportunity to really take this ball forward."

"It's imperative, from my view, that they act on it," he said.


Not Clear if attacks were linked

It is not clear whether Wednesday's attacks were linked, since many insurgent groups operate across Baghdad at any point in time. But most of the attacks targeted Shiite areas, and the market and checkpoint attacks, happened in areas where the Mehdi Army -- the militia of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr -- holds sway.

The Sadr City checkpoint bombing occurred at one of the new checkpoints set up for new crackdown in the capital.

Transfer of security in Maysan province

The Sadr City checkpoint bombing occurred at one of the new checkpoints set up in a new crackdown in the capital.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military was on the move against insurgents. Coalition raids in and around the Iraqi cities of Baghdad, Falluja, Taji, and Mosul on Wednesday led to the killing of six insurgents and the detention of more than 40 others, the U.S. military said.

One US Troop also dies from Non-Battle Injury

A Task Force Marine soldier died in Baghdad on Tuesday of "non-battle injuries, the U.S. military said Wednesday.

Farther south in Maysan province, officials boasted that the transfer of security -- in what has been a relatively quiet district -- "demonstrates another step towards a stable and secure Iraq."

But Maysan isn't a sectarian flashpoint. It is a largely rural stretch located in the Shiite heartland in the south bordering Iran.

A statement from U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, British Ambassador Dominic Asquith, and U.S. Gen. David Petraeus said, "Maysan is the fourth of 18 provinces to be transitioned and this reflects Iraq's continued steps toward a capability to govern and protect itself and its citizens as a sovereign nation."

CNN's Jomana Karadsheh, Arwa Damon, Mohammed Tawfeeq, and Carolina Sanchez contributed to this report.

Iraq War: The American people vs, President Bush

Liberty News brings us up to date. Well done. Beautiful clip about New York paramedics doing what they can to help.

Bush's Iraq 'surge' plan leads to massive implosion of bloody turmoil.

Two days after Condalezza Rice left Baghdad, the city has come under siege.

At an American Base

A Bus in the Karradah district and cars in neighborhoods just north of Baghdad

In a separate attack, a suicide bomber detonated an explosives-rigged belt on a public bus headed for the Karradah neighborhood, police reported. Five people were killed.

There were two other bombs - both in the southeastern Shiite neighborhoods north of Baghdad, at least four were killed when a bomb-rigged cars exploded.

Family Executed

A family of 13 was slaughtered on the road to Falluja, about 12 miles northwest of Baghdad, because they were from a tribe known to oppose the actions of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, according to witnesses. The family, including an elderly woman and two small boys, was dragged out of an Akia minibus, lined up in the middle of the road and shot. The executions took place in full view of others on the road, where traffic was stopped, witnesses said.

The family’s bodies remained on the highway for hours because people were afraid they would be ambushed if they collected the dead, witnesses said.

The family that was executed on the road to Falluja was part of the Albu Farag tribe, which has publicly opposed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and other militant groups. The tribe made an alliance with al-Anbar Salvation Council, which is working to undermine the militants.

Attempted Assassination

The head of al-Anbar Salvation Council, a tribal leader Abdul Satar Abu Risha, also came under attack today. The first explosion hit the blast walls outside the house, a second suicide bomber crashed his vehicle into the house before blowing himself up. five of Abdul Satar Abu Risha guardsw were killed but he was left alive.


Roadside attack on Iraqi police

In a another attack, a roadside bomb exploded by a police patrol, killing two people and wounding 40 bystanders, in the nearby district of Zafaraniyah, a security official said.

Bodies Found

There was also an increase in the number of bodies found around Baghdad after a brief lull, officials said. At least 20 people were found on the streets today showing signs of torture and execution.

Attacks today follow yesterdays attacks

A twin car bombing at a market in a mostly Shiite area on Sunday marked the first major blow to the U.S.-led security crackdown in the capital, where Iraqi officials had boasted that militant factions were on the run. Police said at least 62 people died in that attack.

Why?

Tens of thousands of US and Iraqi troops have been deployed in Baghdad as part of "Operation Fardh al-Qanoon" - Operation Imposing Law - which officially started last week. This is the Bush Surge plan that the House of Representatives disapproved. Currently only two of the three 'American Surge Battalions' are in place.

Comments:


Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki condemned the bombing as a desperate act by ``terrorists'' and ``criminals'' who sense they are being squeezed. ``These crimes confirm the defeat of these perpetrators and their failure in confronting our armed forces, which are determined to cleanse the dens of terrorism,'' al-Maliki said in a statement.

"As displaced families return home peacefully, and hopes are raised by 'Operation Fardh al-Qanoon', criminal terrorists are not happy to see life returing to normal in Baghdad," Nuri al-Maliki, said.

"Our dear people in Baghdad and across Iraq's provinces have chosen to go ahead with the political process despite sacrifices," he added.

"They are determined to stand by our armed forces to encourage them to drive out remnants of the Saddamists and Takfiris and all outlaws," he said, blaming Sunni fighters and supporters of Saddam Hussein for the attacks and notably ignoring the fact that Shiite fighters also have been involved.


U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad
U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said the bombings underscore the ``increasing desperation felt by criminals'' and would only serve to ``galvanize Iraqi forces and their coalition partners.''

Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Garver
"We knew they would strike back and try to get the most damage, the most casualties and the most effect in the media," Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Garver, US military spokesman, said.

"We know that they try to foster the circle of sectarian violence, hoping for retaliation by the other side and trying to make it difficult for us to establish security."

Other developments today Monday February 19th 2007

1) The American military said in a statement today that soldiers captured two members of a rogue Shiite militia cell that is suspected of participating in the kidnapping, torture and murder of an Iraqi Army officer in December 2006

2) Neither the Americans nor the Iraqis would comment on the claims of woman who said she was raped by eight members of the Iraqi National Police in Baghdad. The woman made her claims on the Al Jazeera satellite television channel, but they were impossible to verify. The charges, however, threaten to further complicate the already difficult task of restoring faith in the Iraqi security forces.

Posted by Paul Grant (follower of Basho)

Rumsfeld’s Memo of Options for Iraq War - New York Times

December 3, 2006

Rumsfeld’s Memo of Options for Iraq War

Following is the text of a classified Nov. 6 memorandum that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld sent to the White House suggesting new options in Iraq. The memorandum was sent one day before the midterm Congressional elections and two days before Mr. Rumsfeld resigned.

Nov. 6, 2006

SUBJECT: Iraq — Illustrative New Courses of Action

The situation in Iraq has been evolving, and U.S. forces have adjusted, over time, from major combat operations to counterterrorism, to counterinsurgency, to dealing with death squads and sectarian violence. In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough. Following is a range of options:

ILLUSTRATIVE OPTIONS

Above the Line: (Many of these options could and, in a number of cases, should be done in combination with others)

¶Publicly announce a set of benchmarks agreed to by the Iraqi Government and the U.S. — political, economic and security goals — to chart a path ahead for the Iraqi government and Iraqi people (to get them moving) and for the U.S. public (to reassure them that progress can and is being made).

¶Significantly increase U.S. trainers and embeds, and transfer more U.S. equipment to Iraqi Security forces (ISF), to further accelerate their capabilities by refocusing the assignment of some significant portion of the U.S. troops currently in Iraq.

¶Initiate a reverse embeds program, like the Korean Katusas, by putting one or more Iraqi soldiers with every U.S. and possibly Coalition squad, to improve our units’ language capabilities and cultural awareness and to give the Iraqis experience and training with professional U.S. troops.

¶Aggressively beef up the Iraqi MOD and MOI, and other Iraqi ministries critical to the success of the ISF — the Iraqi Ministries of Finance, Planning, Health, Criminal Justice, Prisons, etc. — by reaching out to U.S. military retirees and Reserve/National Guard volunteers (i.e., give up on trying to get other USG Departments to do it.)

¶Conduct an accelerated draw-down of U.S. bases. We have already reduced from 110 to 55 bases. Plan to get down to 10 to 15 bases by April 2007, and to 5 bases by July 2007.

¶Retain high-end SOF capability and necessary support structure to target Al Qaeda, death squads, and Iranians in Iraq, while drawing down all other Coalition forces, except those necessary to provide certain key enablers for the ISF.

¶Initiate an approach where U.S. forces provide security only for those provinces or cities that openly request U.S. help and that actively cooperate, with the stipulation being that unless they cooperate fully, U.S. forces would leave their province.

¶Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Fallujah when they pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior. Put our reconstruction efforts in those parts of Iraq that are behaving, and invest and create havens of opportunity to reward them for their good behavior. As the old saying goes, “If you want more of something, reward it; if you want less of something, penalize it.” No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence.

¶Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Government.

¶Withdraw U.S. forces from vulnerable positions — cities, patrolling, etc. — and move U.S. forces to a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) status, operating from within Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need assistance.

¶Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and Coalition forces (start “taking our hand off the bicycle seat”), so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country.

¶Provide money to key political and religious leaders (as Saddam Hussein did), to get them to help us get through this difficult period.

¶Initiate a massive program for unemployed youth. It would have to be run by U.S. forces, since no other organization could do it.

¶Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis. This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not “lose.”

¶Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) — go minimalist.

Below the Line (less attractive options):

¶Continue on the current path.

¶Move a large fraction of all U.S. Forces into Baghdad to attempt to control it.

¶Increase Brigade Combat Teams and U.S. forces in Iraq substantially.

¶Set a firm withdrawal date to leave. Declare that with Saddam gone and Iraq a sovereign nation, the Iraqi people can govern themselves. Tell Iran and Syria to stay out.

¶Assist in accelerating an aggressive federalism plan, moving towards three separate states — Sunni, Shia, and Kurd.

¶Try a Dayton-like process.

________________