Monday, January 15, 2007
And now we get to the details
Without which every grand plan would be a smashing success. And the NY Times is reporting that the details of Our Dear Leader's grand plan to extend the war in Iraq until he leaves office are a truly troublesome area. And the source appears to be the difference in the ultimate goals of the Iraqis and the Americans.
First among the American concerns is a Shiite-led government that has been so dogmatic in its attitude that the Americans worry that they will be frustrated in their aim of cracking down equally on Shiite and Sunni extremists, a strategy President Bush has declared central to the plan.And all this overlays the usual planning of strategy, tactics and logistics involving two separate military organizations. No doubt there will be many intelligent hard working people trying to solve these problems, but it is hard to play against a stacked deck.
“We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem,” said an American military official in Baghdad involved in talks over the plan. “We are being played like a pawn.”....
....It remains unclear whether the prime minister will be in overall charge of the new crackdown, a demand the Iraqis have pressed since the plan was first discussed last month, American officials said. They said days of argument had led to a compromise under which General Qanbar would answer to a so-called crisis counsel, made up of Mr. Maliki, the ministers of defense and interior, Iraqi national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, and the top American military commander in Iraq.
The Americans said that while they had reluctantly accepted General Qanbar, they had won concessions from the Iraqis in the appointment of two officers favored by the American command for the two deputy Iraqi commanders, one for the areas of Baghdad west of the Tigris River, the other for districts to the east.
Still, the new command structure seemed rife with potential for conflict. An American military official said that the arrangements appeared unwieldy, and at odds with military doctrine calling for a clear chain of command. “There’s no military definition for ‘partnered,’ ” he said.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
Post a Comment