Richard WarnickWhat’s the Plan for Iraq? Congress Doesn’t Know
Via Talking Points Memo: members of Congress have not been able to obtain a copy of the current plan for Iraq, known as the Joint Campaign Plan. The goal of the plan, according to the New York Times, is to achieve political and military security in Iraq by 2009.
House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) has been trying to get a look at the Joint Campaign Plan since last March. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi personally asked President Bush for the plan months ago at a White House meeting– follow-up requests have been ignored.
In September 2006, a GAO report (PDF) referred to the new plan (since revised):
In April 2006, MNF-I [Multinational Force-Iraq] revised the campaign plan and, in conjunction with the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, issued a new Joint Campaign Plan that contains the goal of transitioning security responsibility from MNF-I to the Iraqi security forces and government. Further details on the campaign plan are classified.
The previous plan, developed by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., who served as General Petraeus’s predecessor before being appointed as chief of staff of the Army, was the failed “we’ll stand down when the Iraqis stand up” policy that relied on a national government that has never established its legitimacy. Mostly-Shiite police and security forces decided to pursue sectarian objectives, such as the forcible eviction of Sunnis from Baghdad, and it became clear that Americans would have to take on the burden of population protection instead of relying on the Iraqis.
The new plan is based on the hope is that sufficient progress might be made at the local level to encourage accommodation at the national level. In practice, this means a variety of ad hoc, improvised measures:
“We are going to try a dozen different things,†said one senior officer. “Maybe one of them will flatline. One of them will do this much. One of them will do this much more. After a while, we believe there is chance you will head into success. I am not saying that we are absolutely headed for success.â€
One of the things being tried is paying insurgents $400 a month to stop shooting at Americans. The Guardian’s Ghaith Abdul-Ahad has a good article about the latest development in the Iraq fiasco:
A senior Sunni sheikh, whose tribe is joining the new alliance with the Americans against al-Qaida, told me in Beirut that it was a simple equation for him. “It’s just a way to get arms, and to be a legalised security force to be able to stand against Shia militias and to prevent the Iraqi army and police from entering their areas,” he said.
“The Americans lost hope with an Iraqi government that is both sectarian and dominated by militias, so they are paying for locals to fight al-Qaida. It will create a series of warlords.
“It’s like someone who brought cats to fight rats, found himself with too many cats and brought dogs to fight the cats. Now they need elephants.”
Yesterday on The View, right-wing radio personality Laura Ingraham unconsciously channeled Tom Cruise’s speech from “Lions for Lambs.” “Do you want to win in Iraq?” she snapped at Barbara Walters. As always, the discussion didn’t include an explanation of how America is supposed to “win” an Iraqi civil war. Maybe the Joint Campaign Plan has the answer. If only our elected representatives were allowed to see it!
Here’s an idea: what if Speaker Pelosi refuses to send any more Iraq appropriations to the House floor until somebody at the White House, the Pentagon, or in Baghdad produces a copy of the Joint Campaign Plan?
UPDATE: It may be time to revise the plan again. Turkey is conducting air strikes in northern Iraq (aka Kurdistan because it’s illegal to fly the Iraqi flag there).
