This memo was sent by Rumsfeld to the White House one day before last month’s elections, which ultimately decided Rummy’s fate. The memo suggests that, regardless of Rumsfeld’s tough grandstanding, he was well aware that things were getting worse and a significant change of strategy was necessary.
How long had Rummy had these concerns? How many coalition troops, not to mention innocent Iraqi civilians, have died because Rummy couldn’t face up to the fact that his strategy was failing? Will this memo now utterly silence those on the right that are attempting to frame the withdrawal from Iraq as Democrat weakness?
From the NYT.
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 seatâ€), 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.â€
¶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.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
Sphere: Related Content
As a Canadian,this war had no intrest to our country.From a coalition member stand point.Afganistan is different for us.We understand the threat terrorists in this part of the world pose to our(north american)values.Iraq has turned into a mess and the fact that the American people want to get this over with is understandable,but.The war needs to be won.More troops,more money,what ever is needed,it cant be a cut and run deal or we’ll pay later.In Afganistan,abroad and within our borders.
I think there are two points to be taken from your contribution, which I thank you for.
First. What is this war? Is it a war? At present, in Iraq, America is attempting to mollify an ongoing civil war. Thousands of Iraqis are resettling in their ethnic regions, and warlords and fanatics are carving up power outside of the puppet parliament which only exists in safety of the green zone. As for the “War on terror” - well America has been introduced to the world beyond its boarders. And war is a political relationship between two states. You can no more have a war on terror as you can have a war on vertigo. It’s rhetorical nonsense.
Second. I’m stumped on Iraq. I want to advocate full withdrawal, and every time I read a commentator giving justification for withdrawal I agree. But… we screwed up, and if we leave sectarianism will just tear the country apart. This will be on our hands (as coalition partners). I want the killing to stop, and if we leave I think it will continue. I accept we are part of the problem, but I don’t agree with many on the left when they argue that we are the only problem.
A solution could be the partition of the country into three autonomous regions: Kurd, Sunni, Shia, with compensations among them. Disparition of all foreign military presence after a given time. Pulling down of the American bases. Control of oil production for the Iraqis.
But I bet the US would not hear of this, mainly the questions of oil and bases. Nor will Turkey or Iran.
Eventually the solution would be the most painful one: leaving Iraq to its fate. And keeping for the US the control of oil. Impeaching the President of the US will not solve anything, just give him his deserved punishment.
I am afraid nothing sensible will come out of all this. America and its companions have ruined Iraq, upset the world’s peace and sunk everybody in chaos. And Iraq is not the only problem they have created. There is still Palestine ad Lebanon.