Bush, Obama, Scales and Terry Moran: a virtual conversation
Senator Barack Obama [D-IL]: ... I think it is entirely appropriate for us to investigate what options are available to us to condition whatever steps further that the President wants to take that involve U. S. taxpayer money and more importantly, American lives.
ABC's Terry Moran: So, the Democrats-- it sounds like-- will get in the game, as it were.
Senator Obama: Absolutely.
[Ed. note: Yes, Terry, “As it were.” Or, if Moran were being a fair and balanced journalist, he might have had a follow-up for Senator Obama: So, does that mean your fellow Democrats and you will try to cut off funding for Bush’s proposed surge? Instead, Moran wimped out, yet again. Not only are Moran’s questions not good journalism...]
****************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: The theory is that when the Iraqis become convinced that security is being provided, along with job opportunities and a future, they will join with the good guys and rat out the bad guys. That is what in general makes for a successful counter-insurgency. “Winning over the hearts and minds,” of the population, it is called. [This is somewhat different from the famous saying of Chuck Colson in the Nixon administration—“When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.”]
***********************************************************
As usual, the commentary on President Bush’s proposal for Iraq was more interesting than the speech setting out the proposal. Retired Army General Bob Scales, a military analyst for the Fox News Channel, gave one of the better descriptions and assessments of the plan to FNC’s Brit Hume shortly after the President’s Wednesday night speech. And, of course, Senator Obama [D-IL] was on the tube weighing in, as well. See below.
Scales said the plan is to deploy eighteen Iraqi brigades and five United States brigades into mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad—and those neighborhoods make up almost two million people. General Scales said those military numbers give what military doctrine calls for, one soldier for every fifty civilians [Of course, that calculus includes a large component of Iraqi, as opposed to U. S., soldiers].
The principal focus of the Iraqi-US effort will be the Sunni insurgents, foreign fighters and Al Qaeda [although the Shia militias will be controlled, too]. Scales said the ratio of friendly to enemy forces will be about ten or fifteen to one, so the metrics point to better ratios than the U. S. has had in the past.
Moreover, the whole focus of the new plan is different from what the U. S. had been doing the last few years in Iraq, which is to fight the insurgents in battle and then return to their large bases, away from the civilians. The goal is to break Baghdad up into nine districts, put Iraqi and U. S. soldiers in each district, and have them clear, hold and build in each district. That is, all the soldiers will be living in the district and their new mission is to provide security for the Iraqis in the portions of Baghdad that need it most, including both Sunnis and Shiites.
Further, the U. S. troops will stiffen the Iraqi military resistance and train them while they fight—and also see that the Iraqi soldiers have the back-up they have been missing: firepower, administration, maintenance, medicine, communications and transport. This embedding of the U. S. troops with the Iraqis is a key point in the new Plan, according to Scales.
The theory is that when the Iraqis become convinced that security is being provided, along with job opportunities and a future, they will join with the good guys and rat out the bad guys. That is what in general makes for a successful counter-insurgency. “Winning over the hearts and minds,” of the population, it is called. [This is somewhat different from the famous saying of Chuck Colson in the Nixon administration—“When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.”]
On the sectarian side, if the Shiites can be protected from the Sunnis, the Shiite militias will be less popular and they can ultimately be dismantled. When the Sunnis realize that the Iraq government and the U. S. are putting the Shia militias out of business, the Sunnis will buy into the new Iraq. When that happens, the Iraqis and U.S. are left with a more manageable force to fight: Al Qaeda and various foreign troops coming in from Syria and Iran. Also, U. S. warships now off the coast of Iran may give pause to Iran as to how much support they want to lend to the insurgents.
Thus, from General Scales’ perspective, President Bush’s new plan well recognizes that the issues to be dealt with are military, political and economic—and his plan deals with all three.
However, Scales is skeptical of the long term effects of the new U.S. plan, with his concerns being three-fold: (1) The U.S. and the Iraqis don’t know what the enemy will do, and as former Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld often said, “The enemy has a brain,” (2) The U. S. doesn’t know how effective the Iraqi soldiers will be [and past performance is not encouraging] and (3) President Bush may not have the six to twelve months that the above requires, especially if the Iraqis falter initially, the reports back to the U. S. are negative and the Democrats and some Republicans say “enough is enough,” and Obama and Hillary race each other to pull the plug on congressional funding [Presidential candidate John Edwards will join them in spirit, but he is no longer in Congress, having given up his seat in ’04 for Edwards' first run for President].
Now, let’s go to Senator Barack Obama on Nightline last night, who Terry Moran introduced as “a leading Democrat,”-- to deal with Moran’s question: Can the Dems stop the Bush surge and do they have a plan. You can watch Senator Obama on Nightline here, and read his answers below:
Barack Obama: …there is not a military solution to the problems that we face in Iraq right now, they are political. The problem that we have is that Shia and Sunni are unwilling to compromise and arrive at the sort of accommodations that would lead to stability…a phased withdrawal is the only leverage we have to force that political accommodation.
[Moran could have followed up with the question: “Isn’t it the case that the problems are military, economic and political,” as Bush’s new plan for Iraq highlights? Instead, Moran asked lamely, “Do you believe we’ve lost,” eliciting a mushy answer from Obama that we might get a relatively stable Iraq that is not a terrorist safe haven if we can get the various factions to work together; Actually, Senator Obama's answer to this question is fairly consistent with what he said to Berkowitz in July, 2006, [See here].
********************************************
Senator Obama: …absent from the President’s plan are any consequences for their [the various factions in Iraq] failure to engage in the kind of political accommodations that are necessary.
[Moran could have asked this follow-up to Obama: Don’t you think that the Iraqi government realizes that if things don’t get better in Iraq soon, politically or otherwise, Bush will be forced to start a withdrawal, due to political pressure from the Dems? How do you like those consequences? But Terry Moran is not noted for asking tough questions of Democrats. Instead Moran agreed with Obama, “So, troop withdrawal is a kind of leverage.” Way to wimp out, Terry Moran. And, this is the same guy who would snarl at Bush at Presidential press conferences. Boy, what a difference a political party makes.]
Terry Moran: Finally, I want to pick up on something you said, are you pledging for the Democrats that the Democrats will not try to cut off funding or put some kind of sunset on the funding for this troop surge or escalation.
Senator Obama: What I think is important is to recognize that neither Republicans nor Democrats are going to put American troops that are on the ground at risk. But, I think it is entirely appropriate for us to investigate what options are available to us to condition whatever steps further that the President wants to take that involve U. S. taxpayer money and more importantly, American lives.
Terry Moran: So, the Democrats-- it sounds like-- will get in the game, as it were.
Senator Obama: Absolutely.
[Yes, Terry, “As it were.” Or, if Moran were being a fair and balanced journalist, he might have had a follow-up for Senator Obama: So, does that mean your fellow Democrats and you will try to cut off funding for Bush’s proposed surge? Instead, Moran wimped out, yet again. Not only are Moran’s questions not good journalism, they don’t make for very good TV. Another pretty boy on ABC News to join George. And, Terry had a little hatchet job on President Bush with Doug Wead and Ron Suskind in another segment of Nightline on Wednesday night, but that’s another post]
**********************************
Nightline, January 10, 2007
************************************
ABC's Terry Moran: So, the Democrats-- it sounds like-- will get in the game, as it were.
Senator Obama: Absolutely.
[Ed. note: Yes, Terry, “As it were.” Or, if Moran were being a fair and balanced journalist, he might have had a follow-up for Senator Obama: So, does that mean your fellow Democrats and you will try to cut off funding for Bush’s proposed surge? Instead, Moran wimped out, yet again. Not only are Moran’s questions not good journalism...]
****************************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: The theory is that when the Iraqis become convinced that security is being provided, along with job opportunities and a future, they will join with the good guys and rat out the bad guys. That is what in general makes for a successful counter-insurgency. “Winning over the hearts and minds,” of the population, it is called. [This is somewhat different from the famous saying of Chuck Colson in the Nixon administration—“When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.”]
***********************************************************
As usual, the commentary on President Bush’s proposal for Iraq was more interesting than the speech setting out the proposal. Retired Army General Bob Scales, a military analyst for the Fox News Channel, gave one of the better descriptions and assessments of the plan to FNC’s Brit Hume shortly after the President’s Wednesday night speech. And, of course, Senator Obama [D-IL] was on the tube weighing in, as well. See below.
Scales said the plan is to deploy eighteen Iraqi brigades and five United States brigades into mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad—and those neighborhoods make up almost two million people. General Scales said those military numbers give what military doctrine calls for, one soldier for every fifty civilians [Of course, that calculus includes a large component of Iraqi, as opposed to U. S., soldiers].
The principal focus of the Iraqi-US effort will be the Sunni insurgents, foreign fighters and Al Qaeda [although the Shia militias will be controlled, too]. Scales said the ratio of friendly to enemy forces will be about ten or fifteen to one, so the metrics point to better ratios than the U. S. has had in the past.
Moreover, the whole focus of the new plan is different from what the U. S. had been doing the last few years in Iraq, which is to fight the insurgents in battle and then return to their large bases, away from the civilians. The goal is to break Baghdad up into nine districts, put Iraqi and U. S. soldiers in each district, and have them clear, hold and build in each district. That is, all the soldiers will be living in the district and their new mission is to provide security for the Iraqis in the portions of Baghdad that need it most, including both Sunnis and Shiites.
Further, the U. S. troops will stiffen the Iraqi military resistance and train them while they fight—and also see that the Iraqi soldiers have the back-up they have been missing: firepower, administration, maintenance, medicine, communications and transport. This embedding of the U. S. troops with the Iraqis is a key point in the new Plan, according to Scales.
The theory is that when the Iraqis become convinced that security is being provided, along with job opportunities and a future, they will join with the good guys and rat out the bad guys. That is what in general makes for a successful counter-insurgency. “Winning over the hearts and minds,” of the population, it is called. [This is somewhat different from the famous saying of Chuck Colson in the Nixon administration—“When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.”]
On the sectarian side, if the Shiites can be protected from the Sunnis, the Shiite militias will be less popular and they can ultimately be dismantled. When the Sunnis realize that the Iraq government and the U. S. are putting the Shia militias out of business, the Sunnis will buy into the new Iraq. When that happens, the Iraqis and U.S. are left with a more manageable force to fight: Al Qaeda and various foreign troops coming in from Syria and Iran. Also, U. S. warships now off the coast of Iran may give pause to Iran as to how much support they want to lend to the insurgents.
Thus, from General Scales’ perspective, President Bush’s new plan well recognizes that the issues to be dealt with are military, political and economic—and his plan deals with all three.
However, Scales is skeptical of the long term effects of the new U.S. plan, with his concerns being three-fold: (1) The U.S. and the Iraqis don’t know what the enemy will do, and as former Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld often said, “The enemy has a brain,” (2) The U. S. doesn’t know how effective the Iraqi soldiers will be [and past performance is not encouraging] and (3) President Bush may not have the six to twelve months that the above requires, especially if the Iraqis falter initially, the reports back to the U. S. are negative and the Democrats and some Republicans say “enough is enough,” and Obama and Hillary race each other to pull the plug on congressional funding [Presidential candidate John Edwards will join them in spirit, but he is no longer in Congress, having given up his seat in ’04 for Edwards' first run for President].
Now, let’s go to Senator Barack Obama on Nightline last night, who Terry Moran introduced as “a leading Democrat,”-- to deal with Moran’s question: Can the Dems stop the Bush surge and do they have a plan. You can watch Senator Obama on Nightline here, and read his answers below:
Barack Obama: …there is not a military solution to the problems that we face in Iraq right now, they are political. The problem that we have is that Shia and Sunni are unwilling to compromise and arrive at the sort of accommodations that would lead to stability…a phased withdrawal is the only leverage we have to force that political accommodation.
[Moran could have followed up with the question: “Isn’t it the case that the problems are military, economic and political,” as Bush’s new plan for Iraq highlights? Instead, Moran asked lamely, “Do you believe we’ve lost,” eliciting a mushy answer from Obama that we might get a relatively stable Iraq that is not a terrorist safe haven if we can get the various factions to work together; Actually, Senator Obama's answer to this question is fairly consistent with what he said to Berkowitz in July, 2006, [See here].
********************************************
Senator Obama: …absent from the President’s plan are any consequences for their [the various factions in Iraq] failure to engage in the kind of political accommodations that are necessary.
[Moran could have asked this follow-up to Obama: Don’t you think that the Iraqi government realizes that if things don’t get better in Iraq soon, politically or otherwise, Bush will be forced to start a withdrawal, due to political pressure from the Dems? How do you like those consequences? But Terry Moran is not noted for asking tough questions of Democrats. Instead Moran agreed with Obama, “So, troop withdrawal is a kind of leverage.” Way to wimp out, Terry Moran. And, this is the same guy who would snarl at Bush at Presidential press conferences. Boy, what a difference a political party makes.]
Terry Moran: Finally, I want to pick up on something you said, are you pledging for the Democrats that the Democrats will not try to cut off funding or put some kind of sunset on the funding for this troop surge or escalation.
Senator Obama: What I think is important is to recognize that neither Republicans nor Democrats are going to put American troops that are on the ground at risk. But, I think it is entirely appropriate for us to investigate what options are available to us to condition whatever steps further that the President wants to take that involve U. S. taxpayer money and more importantly, American lives.
Terry Moran: So, the Democrats-- it sounds like-- will get in the game, as it were.
Senator Obama: Absolutely.
[Yes, Terry, “As it were.” Or, if Moran were being a fair and balanced journalist, he might have had a follow-up for Senator Obama: So, does that mean your fellow Democrats and you will try to cut off funding for Bush’s proposed surge? Instead, Moran wimped out, yet again. Not only are Moran’s questions not good journalism, they don’t make for very good TV. Another pretty boy on ABC News to join George. And, Terry had a little hatchet job on President Bush with Doug Wead and Ron Suskind in another segment of Nightline on Wednesday night, but that’s another post]
**********************************
Nightline, January 10, 2007
************************************
<< Home