The WSJ begins with this interesting observation:
The Bush administration is quietly moving toward a major shift in Iraq policy, driven by successes in formerly intractable insurgent strongholds combined with dispiriting failures at fostering national reconciliation.
After almost four years of trying to build Iraq's central government in Baghdad, the U.S. has found that what appears to work best in the divided country is just the opposite. So senior military officials are increasingly working to strengthen local players who are bringing some measure of stability to their communities. The new approach bears some striking similarities to the "soft partition" strategy pushed by senior Democrats, and suggests that despite the often bitter debate in Washington on Iraq policy, a broad consensus on how to move ahead in the war-torn country may be forming.Democratic Senator Joe Biden, a no-chance candidate for president, is rolling over in his political grave. He has been talking about such an approach for a long time. Another more recent entry into the "no-chance" category has been Sen. McCain, and he has been a long time proponent of increasing troop levels in Iraq. So, if you're keeping score at home, both parties will probably easily reject two fellows who may be offering the most effective strategies for dealing with Iraq. (NOTE to NOVA students: The article is accessible through the NOVA library.)
The Washington Post offers three interesting articles:
1) On working with insurgents: HERE.
2) On dealing with Iraqi forces who are often more closely aligned with insurgents: HERE.
3) And on the politics of evaluating Surge policy success: HERE.
What does the military think? This is from McClatchy:
In a sign that top commanders are divided over what course to pursue in Iraq, the Pentagon said Wednesday that it won't make a single, unified recommendation to President Bush during next month's strategy assessment, but instead will allow top commanders to make individual presentations.
No comments:
Post a Comment