Majority Leader: Iraq Needs a Peace Conference

The violence within Iraq could benefit from a peace conference such as that in Dayton, Ohio in 1995 that helped solve the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, according to the Democratic majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.

"Many scholars have called for a Dayton-like peace conference, an idea I support," says Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland. "Frankly, it is time for the president to accept that we are no longer involved in a nation-building exercise. We are involved in a conflict resolution, and there is no better means for resolving such conflicts, especially escalating civil wars that run the risk of becoming genocide, than to convene an international conference to achieve a cessation of violence and advance reconciliation."

President Bush has called for an increase of more than 20,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, a move opposed by Hoyer and other Democratic leaders in Congress.

Sectarian violence has surged in Iraq over the last year, prompting some to say Iraq is in civil war. U.S. troops invaded Iraq in 2003 and overthrew strongman Saddam Hussein. Moer than 3,000 U.S. service personnel have lost their lives in Iraq.

Organizing a peace conference for Iraq would also help United States' reputation abroad, Hoyer says.

"I urge the president to do this. I would propose that the conference be carried out under U.N. auspices with robust involvement from various Iraqi factions, neighboring countries, key Middle East nations, the European Union and others with the hope of brokering deals on securing Iraq's borders, disbanding militias, finalizing the constitution, establishing divisions of power and oil resources and other outstanding issues," Hoyer says.






Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

U.S. To Step Up Iraq Reconstruction Alongside Troop Surge

The U.S. government will boost its Iraq reconstruction efforts in Baghdad and Anbar Province alongside President Bush's intended troop surge in Iraq, says a senior adviser to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and coordinator for Iraq.

President Bush says he will deploy more than 20,000 troops to deal with the violence gripping Iraq.

The State Department, meanwhile, will also immediately begin "deploying greater resources alongside our military in Baghdad and Anbar" in Iraq, says Ambassador David Satterfield.

"The centerpiece of this effort will be our expansion of our Provincial Reconstruction Teams," Satterfield says. "We will double our PRTs from 10 to 20, adding more than 300 new personnel. We will expand our PRTs in three phases with the first phase occurring over the next three months to complement our enhanced military efforts. In that time, we plan to co-locate nine new PRTs – six in Baghdad and three in Anbar – with Brigade Combat Teams engaged in security operations."

The PRTs Iraq will also include US Agency for International Development advisers, as well as civil affairs officers and bilingual advisors from the Department of Defense, Satterfield says.

PRTs will support local moderate Iraqi leaders through targeted assistance (e.g. microloans, vocational education and grants) to foster new businesses, create jobs and develop provincial capacity to govern in an effective and sustainable way, Satterfield says. PRTs will continue to play a leading role in coordinating several U.S. programs funded by the Congress, including Iraqi Provincial Reconstruction Development Councils (PRDC) and USAID’s local governance, community stabilization, and community action programs, he says.

"We intend to complete all three phases of our PRT expansion by the end of the calendar year," Satterfield adds, noting however that completion will be dependent both on the timing of, and level of funding appropriated in, the fiscal year 2007 supplemental appropriation measure to fund the Iraq war, as well as "circumstances on the ground in Iraq."

Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

Latest Harris Iraq Poll: 'We're Not Winning, We're Not Losing'

The latest Harris Poll of U.S. attitudes on the situation in Iraq war shows that many U.S. adults hold the attitude of "we're not winning and we're not losing." However, while this suggests the U.S. adult public thinks that perhaps things aren't quite as negative in the war in Iraq, other data within this same survey still paints a very negative picture. Most of the numbers are nearly as low as they have ever been in the course of more than three years.

A slight majority (52%) believe that we are not winning, but we are not losing either. However, almost three times as many feel we are losing (29%)as compared to just 10 percent who think we are winning. There are significant differences by political party. Many Republicans (57%) agreethat we are neither winning nor losing, though 23 percent of Republicans believe we are winning and 11 percent think we are losing. Conversely,about half of Democrats (49%) think we are losing and 43 percent think we are neither winning nor losing.

In this survey conducted just before the State of the Union address, seven in 10 (70%) U.S. adults give President Bush a negative rating on his handling of Iraq, while only a quarter (26%) give him positivemarks. These are virtually identical to a November 2006 assessment when President Bush also received a 71 to 26 percent negative rating.

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll survey of 2,337 U.S. adults conducted online between January 11 and 18, by Harris Interactive.

In the past few weeks, President Bush has also embarked on a major campaign to see his new Iraq policy of sending in more troops. The "sell" may be working somewhat as more people (27%) now accept the premise of sending more troops to Iraq for a few months. In November, a lower 19 percent agreed with this. However, that being said, over four in 10 (44%) U.S. adults think a timetable should be set for the withdrawal of US troops from the Iraq war. This is down from November, when 51 percent felt this way.

Furthermore the main trends are:

* By 67 to 16 percent, a clear majority still believes that there is a civil war in Iraq now. This has not changed since November 2006 when 68 percent to 14 percent felt this way;

* A 55 percent majority now believes that the situation for U.S. troops is getting worse and only 13 percent think it is getting better. In November, a 58 percent to nine percent majority felt this way;

* A 46 percent to 37 percent plurality (compared to 46% to 36% in November) now believes that "taking military action against Iraq" was the wrong thing to do;

* A 61 percent to 19 percent majority is "not confident" that U.S. policy in Iraq will be successful, compared to a 63 percent to 17 percent majority in November.

The public is split between those who believe that "it was a mistake to take military action in Iraq in the first place" (40%; down from November's 42%) and those who think it "was the right thing to do but that things have gotten off course" (41%; virtually unchanged from 40% in November). Only a small minority (12%; similar to November's 13 percent) believes that it "was the right thing to do and things are going reasonably well."

This survey finds that attitudes toward events in the Iraq war are still highly polarized by party. Fully 67 percent of Democrats and 44 percent of independents think that taking military action in Iraq was "a mistake inthe first place," but only 12 percent of Republicans feel this way. On the other hand, 57 percent of Republicans (compared to 24 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of independents) believe invading Iraq "was the right thing to do, but things have gotten off course there." Further, 26 percent of Republicans, but only two percent of Democrats and nine percent of independents, believe it was the right decision "and things are going reasonably well."

Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

Poll: Bush Continues To Face Steep Public Disapproval on Iraq

Less than two weeks after President Bush unveiled his plan to increase troop levels in Iraq, a 68-percent majority of Americans strongly (45 percent) or moderately (23 percent) oppose Bush's "surge" strategy, according to the January 17-18 Newsweek Poll.

Fourteen percent moderately favor the plan and only 12 percent strongly favor it. Half (50 percent) of those polled advocate a reduction of troop levels in Iraq, versus 23 percent who want to increase the number of U.S. troops and 18 percent who want to keep troop levels the same.

Generally, only 24 percent of Americans approve of how Bush is handling the war-an all-time low in the Newsweek Poll; 70 percent disapprove. And two-thirds (67 percent) say they think the United States is losing ground in its efforts to provide security and democracy in Iraq; only 24 percent say the U.S. is making progress.

President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003 because he said Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. No weapons of mass destruction were found. More than 3,000 American troops have died in Iraq. Tens of thousands more have been wounded in Iraq and 34,000 Iraqis have lost their lives in Iraq.

Iraq has been plunged into increasing violence since the invasion ousted Iraq strongman Saddam Hussein. Saddam has since been hanged.

President Bush wants to add more than 20,000 U.S. troops to Iraq; Democrats who now control Congress are resisting that so-called surge strategy. President Bush does not want to withdraw forces from Iraq.

Taking a closer look at Americans' thoughts on the situation in Iraq, a majority now say they are not too confident (29 percent) or not at all confident (36 percent) that the Iraqi government will be able to control the violence and provide security to its citizens if U.S. troops are withdrawn. Twenty-two percent say they are somewhat confident and 5 percent say they are very confident, the poll shows. When it comes to U.S. political leadership, 55 percent of those polled say they have more faith in the Democratic congressional leaders to make decisions regarding Iraq policy, versus 32 percent who trust Bush to make better decisions. When asked whether Congress should try to block the additional funding Bush would need for additional troops, poll respondents were split evenly: 46 percent say lawmakers should, 46 percent say they should not.

Americans differ on what might result from increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, the poll shows. Sixty-seven percent say it is very or somewhat likely that it will lead to increased U.S. casualties without helping achieve our goals there; 62 percent say it is very or somewhat likely that it will make the Iraqis more dependent on U.S. military protection and only delay the time when they are ready to take responsibility for their own security; 33 percent say it is somewhat or very likely that it will give the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds time to settle their differences; and 42 percent say it is somewhat or very likely that it will help reduce violence in Baghdad. The poll shows Americans are also split on the United States' priorities in Iraq. Forty-six percent favor withdrawing troops as soon as possible to minimize the number of American casualties while 45 percent say we should maintain troop levels for at least another year or two to give Iraqis more time to settle their differences and reach a political settlement.


Bush Job Approval Low


President Bush's job approval rating remains at its all-time low in the Newsweek Poll: 31 percent. Sixty-two percent of those polled disapprove of how he is handling his job as president. Only 30 percent say they are satisfied with how things are going in the United States; 62 percent are dissatisfied. On the subject of Bush's leadership, 57 percent say he does not possess strong leadership qualities, 41 percent say he does. This represents a near reversal from Newsweek's September 29-30, 2005 Poll, in which 50 percent of those polled said he had strong leadership qualities while 47 percent said he did not.

In another turnaround from the September 29-30, 2005 poll, 54 percent of respondents in the latest poll say they do not think Bush is honest and ethical, versus 41 percent who say he is. Inthe earlier poll, 50 percent found him to be honest and ethical, while 45 percent did not. Only 35 percent of respondents in the most recent poll feel Bush cares about "people like them," versus 60 percent who do not.

For this Newsweek Poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates International interviewed 1,003 adults aged 18 and older on January 17-18, 2007. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.


Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

In Own State of the Union, Top Dems Call For Iraq War End

The top Democrats who lead the U.S. Congress continued to push their opposition to President Bush's escalation of U.S. involvement in Iraq -- and the top Democrat in the Senate is going further by advocating a withdrawl of U.S. forces from the conflict in coming months.

Speaking in Washington in their own joint State of the Union speech, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid say Iraqis must shoulder more of the burden of security in their nation.

More than 3,000 American service personnel have lost their lives in Iraq while tens-of-thousands more have been wounded in combat in Iraq. Last year, violence claimed the lives of at least 34,000 Iraqis -- a rate of almost 100 a day, Reid notes. The war in Iraq has now lasted longer than World War II, Reid, a senator from Nevada, adds.

"Yet despite these tremendous costs, despite this great sacrifice, the Iraq war has made America less safe, not more safe," Reid says. "Our troops in Iraq --including hundreds of fine Nevadans -- have done everything asked of them. It's their political leaders at home who've failed. We must change course."

President Bush this month called for an increase of more than 20,000 U.S. troops to Iraq. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003 because he said Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. No WMDs have been found. Since the ouster of since-hanged Iraq leader Saddam Hussein, Iraq has been plagued by sectarian violence.

"Unfortunately, the president's new plan can be summed up in four words: 'more of the same,'" Reid says. "Like our military generals, the American people and a growingbipartisan chorus in Congress, I believe escalation is a serious mistake."

Democrats want to transform the U.S. military mission in Iraq, Reid says.

"The mission of our troops should be transitioned away from combat to training, force protection, logistics and counter-terror. U.S. forces have been given an impossible mission -- policing a civil war," he says. "It's Iraqis -- not our troops -- who should be walking the streets of Baghdad, trying to sort friend from foe."

The toll the Iraq war is putting on U.S. forces threatens U.S. security overall, according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"The strain the war is placing on our Army and Marine Corps diminishes our ability to respond toother challenges and thereby threatens our security," she says. "Escalating our military involvement in Iraq will not reverse these negative effects, it will only add to them.

Reid says the U.S. should begin the phased redeployment of its forces within the next four to six months, putting more responsibility on Iraqis

"Only Iraqis can ultimately secure Iraq," Reid says. "A phased redeployment will allow our country to rebuild the military force here at home, and increase the number of troops available to hunt for Osama bin Laden and stabilize Afghanistan."

The issues facing Iraq are beyond solving by U.S. military force, Pelosi says.

"The solutions to the issues which divide Iraqis are political and diplomatic, not military. As such, they are beyond the ability of our troops, who have performed their difficult and dangerous missions with great courage, to resolve," she says. "The Iraqis and their neighbors have the most at stake in an unsafe Iraq. The sooner we give them the responsibility fortheir future, the sooner our troops can come home."


Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

NEWSWEEK: Army Ex-Vice Chief Knew That 'We Were in Deep S---'

Gen. Jack Keane, former Army vice chief of staff, was stepping down just as the insurgency in Iraq started in late spring 2003.

"I went to Iraq in June, looked at it and I knew we werein deep s---," Keane tells Newsweek. "I was going out the door. I felt frustrated. Frustrated with the situation, frustrated with myself andeverything else. And somewhat guilty because I knew how ill prepared the Army was to deal with it."

But Keane gave no public warnings. In Newsweek's January 22 issue (on newsstands Monday, January 15), national security correspondent John Barry and Editor-at-Large Evan Thomas report on why, to date, the military has received little criticism for its actions in Iraq despite all of the recriminations over the situation there--and why some in the armed forces now feel that the top brass should share the blame.

"Everyone recognizes that we made mistakes," says Keane. "The harder part is what to learn from them."

Now, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus has been chosen to find a better way in Iraq. For the past 14 months, Petraeus has supervised the writing of the Army's new field manual on counterinsurgency warfare, FM 3-24. Petraeus is a resourceful, imaginative commander who has shown an ability to adapt to rude surprises, write Barry and Thomas. But he will need to be creative, and he may need to do what generals do not like to do: tell the president that he's wrong, that Iraq cannot be won by more force, that the time has come to pull back. Even Petraeus's own strategy may have been overrun byevents.

"It's ironic," says one of the drafters of the new counterinsurgency manual. "We've finished the counterinsurgency manual just as Iraq looks like it's heading for civil war. We don't have a doctrine for that."

Part of the problem, report Barry and Thomas, was the lack of such a counterinsurgency plan after the invasion. When Gen. George Casey arrived at Baghdad headquarters as the commander of U.S.-led coalition forces, he asked his staff to set up a meeting with the HQ's counterinsurgency team. "His request was met with silence," reports retired Col. Douglas Macgregor, a gulf-war veteran and author of an admired study of combat organization. (There was no such staff or counterinsurgency plan.)

Army planners were not oblivious to the risks of a long occupation after a successful, lightning invasion. The pre-war chief of Central Command, Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, says, "The thing that kept getting us was: if you go into Iraq you aregoing to inherit a broken society."

But his successor, Gen. Tommy Franks, concentrated almost entirely on the invasion--and essentially ignored postwar planning. Sens. John Warner and Carl Levin, the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, respectivelym asked Franks why.

"He said hewas told to stay the hell out of it" by his civilian boss, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Levin recalls. (Franks denies this.)

Keane tells Newsweek that Franks believed that the postwar planning, known as Phase Four, was the responsibility of a different general, retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, the head of the tiny, understaffed Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (who in turn was soon replaced by a civilian, Ambassador Paul Bremer).

"Franks was dead wrong, and I don't believe he did this thing right, but he literally washed his hands of this Phase Four stuff," says Keane, speaking with unusual bluntness about a fellow officer. (Franks disagrees, pointing out that Garner served under him.)

In and around Baghdad, report Barry and Thomas, the Army's approach was"kinetic"; it would use firepower and brute force. Untrained incounterinsurgency, the commander of the Fourth Infantry Division, Lt. Gen.Ray Odierno, ordered his men to kick in doors and arrest any man who looked like an insurgent. Overflowing their cells at Abu Ghraib, the prisoners became targets of poorly trained, overwhelmed guards. The consequences toAmerica's image in Iraq--and in the Arab and Muslim worlds--were disastrous. (Odierno, who has recently gone back to Baghdad, insisted in an earlier interview with Newsweek that he had not been heavy-handed.)

Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

Libertarians Scholars Critical of Iraq Troop Surge

Prominent libertarian thinkers have joined a chorus of Democrats urging President Bush to reject the "troop surge" option when he presents his new strategy tonight for U.S. involvement in Iraq.

"President Bush is sure to face stiff opposition if he chooses to escalate the conflict in Iraq by adding 20,000 or more U.S. troops," says Christopher Preble, director of foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington. "The bipartisan Iraq Study Group wisely rejected similar proposals to escalate the U.S. military campaign; the public is equally skeptical that additional troops will succeed in reversing the ominous cycle of sectarian violence -- with good reason. The latest proposals are merely more of the same, offered by the very same people who got us into this mess in the first place.

"Aside from a few die-hard war supporters, most Americans recognize that the costs of our continued military presence in Iraq are far greater than any benefits that we might eventually enjoy as a nation," Preble adds. "In the meantime, the war effort is sapping our national will, eroding our military might, and undermining our efforts to prosecute the global counter-terrorism campaign against al Qaeda."

The war in Iraq is nearly four years old and has cost more than 3,000 American lives. President Bush launched the invasion because he said Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction for use against the United States. No WMDs have been found. American disapproval of Bush's handling of the war has risen sharply.

President Bush's speech tonight will fail to secure either more support for the president's Iraq policy or a more peaceful Iraq, according to Cato adjunct scholar Patrick Basham.

"The president's new plan for Iraq is little more than a military Band-Aid with almost no chance of long-term success," he says. "Committing additional troops may serve the short-term objective of marginally reducing the volume of sectarian killings and insurgent attacks upon Iraqi government personnel and American soldiers in and around the Iraqi capital.

"The surge in troops will do nothing to alter the underlying dynamics that continue to drive the violence in Iraq: deep-seated religious, ethnic, and tribal divisions and hatreds; and a high and rising level of antipathy among Iraqis across the sectarian divide towards the continuing occupation of their country by Western armies," he adds.


Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

Lessons From Cold War Insurgencies Could Aid Efforts In Iraq, Afghanistan

Tactics used to battle Cold War-era insurgencies – such as offering amnesty to combatants and securing national borders – could help the United States as it confronts insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a new RAND Corporation report.

While the insurgency in Iraq often is seen as too fragmented to be compared with past events, a review of five decades of RAND research on non-traditional warfare suggests that the current struggle in Iraq is similar in many ways to past insurgencies faced by the United States and other nations.

“The differences between past and current fights against insurgencies are overstated,” says Austin Long, author of the new RAND report. “Many insurgencies during the Cold War were fragmented, with rebel groups fighting each other as well as a central opposition force.”

Long says his review of five decades of counterinsurgency research by RAND suggests there are four lessons of particular relevance to today's ongoing battles: the proper organization of counterinsurgency efforts; the use of amnesty and reward programs; the control of national borders; and pacification of a nation's population.

Long, a doctoral candidate in securities studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, reviewed dozens of past RAND studies about tactics used against insurgencies in such disparate places as Vietnam, Algiers and El Salvador in order to distill lessons for today's conflicts.

His efforts included working to declassify several reports so that their lessons could be incorporated into his report, which is titled On ‘Other War' – Lessons from Five Decades of RAND Counterinsurgency Research. RAND is a nonprofit research organization.

Long said that past experience shows that measuring progress against insurgents is difficult because the traditional military indicators such as movement of the front line or the number of enemy killed may be misleading. However, there are a number of best-practices in counterinsurgency operations that hold promise for the current efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Long concludes that the best organization to combat insurgencies appears to bring together political and military components into one decision-making group, which insures that the efforts of one does not undercut the progress of the other.

Some movement toward this model has occurred in both Iraq and Afghanistan with efforts called Provincial Reconstruction Teams, which include representatives from the military, the U.S. State Department, development experts and local officials. The teams work together to move forward the dual goals of improving security and developing government resources.

Long suggests these teams be expanded to create similar efforts at the regional and national levels, where they could coordinate overall efforts for counterinsurgency operations and development, as well as settling disagreements that occur at the local level.

“This type of organization helps wean military officials from thinking in terms of divisions and brigades when it comes to counterinsurgency efforts,” Long said.

Another strategy outlined in Other War involves extending amnesty to those involved in an insurgency, as well as offering rewards to people who turn in those who are involved in insurgent fighting.

Long argues that in Iraq amnesty should be offered even to insurgents who have been involved in killings, but only if the combatants agree to fully cooperate with the government and relocate away from insurgent-dominated areas.

Experiences in fighting insurgencies in places such as Malaya and Vietnam show that amnesty programs can encourage thousands of fighters to give up their arms by providing an alternative to the “fight to the finish” mindset that characterizes insurgent battles, according to the report.