::::::::
By John E. CareyPeace and Freedom
January 5, 2007
President Bush plans a White House announcement next week detailing his plan for the next phase of American involvement in the war in Iraq.
On Thursday, the president engaged in a secure video-teleconference with the Prime Minister of Iraq, Mr. Nuri al-Maliki.
The one hour and 45 minutes discussion may have been the last conversation between the two leaders before Bush unveils his new war-fighting approach in a speech expected as early as the middle of next week.
"The president did not unveil a new way forward," said Tony Snow the White House spokesman.
Still, the session was unusual in that about one-half of the time was spent with just the American President and the Iraqi P.M., and their interpreters, participating in the conference. All other staff members were cleared from the teleconference center in the White House and in Iraq.
President Bush said, "One thing is for certain: I will want to make sure the mission is clear and specific and can be accomplished."
Although Tony Snow insists that President Bush has not yet made any final decisions, most analysts with sources in the White House or the Pentagon believe that the president is embracing the Kagan/Keane plan to "surge" additional forces to provide security and quell the violence in Baghdad and other trouble spots.
Professor Frederick Kagan is a widely published military historian who served as a professor at the United States Military Academy at West Point from 1995 until 2005. He currently works at the American Enterprise Institute.
Retired U.S. Army General Army Jack Keane sees eye to eye with Mr. Kagan. He is the former Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, the number two man in the Army. Both favor the "surge" option and both have had discussions with the president who was reportedly impressed.
The two also have made their views and justifications widely known by publishing commentary essays including one in The Washington Post on December 27, 2006.
Wrote Mr. Kagan and General Keane, "Bringing security to Baghdad -- the essential precondition for political compromise, national reconciliation and economic development -- is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail."
According to Kagan and Keane, "The key to the success is to change the military mission -- instead of preparing for transition to Iraqi control, that mission should be to bring security to the Iraqi population. Surges aimed at accelerating the training of Iraqi forces will fail, because rising sectarian violence will destroy Iraq before the new forces can bring it under control."
Kagan is known to have the president's ear and has briefed several times to administration officials.
Experts believe the number of additional troops will probably be less than the 30,000 Kagan and Keane recommended but may be as many as 20,000.
We've been asked why the president insists upon adding troops and will not entertain ideas like Rep. John Murtha's plan to bring the troops home relatively rapidly.
The answer is complex but can be simplified to this: the president and many of his advisors believe that withdrawal of U.S. troops before Iraq can "govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself" would create a dangerous void that would almost certainly escalate the violence further in Iraq and perhaps lead to a partitioning of the country and its oil wealth.
Other factors include the reaction of regional neighbors. Saudi Arabia would likely see a rapid U.S. withdrawal as a "sell out," Iran would likely see the U.S. departure as an Iranian victory, and those forces surrounding Israel would be emboldened to step up assaults on that nation.
To put it simply, some military experts in Iraq have told us that there are as many as 15,000 Muslim extremist insurrectionist inside Iraq. Once the U.S. leaves, this unemployed mob will be looking for another country where they can put their mayhem to work in the extremist cause.
One could envision greater violence and instability in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon and elsewhere. Even long stabile governments like that in Cairo fear an influx of terrorists seeking a strict Muslim run government.
Many Senators and Congressmen have expressed they opposition to adding more troops, even in the short term, to the Iraq force. But apparently the Congress will not cut off funding to prevent the additional deployments, according to knowledgeable sources.
The president is also likely to discuss next week economic and job making programs for Iraq and some new strategic goals if not timelines.
White House insiders are now saying that the president will nominate Admiral William Fallon, a Naval aviator, to succeed General John Abizaid as the Commander of the Central Command (CentCom).
CentCom oversees more than 250,000 US troops. Adm. Fallon was the Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command and U.S. Atlantic Fleet from October 2003 to February 2005 and has been the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command since 2005.
General John Abizaid is scheduled to retire.
Abizaid succeeded General Tommy Franks at CentCom on July 7, 2003.Also, General George Casey, the U.S. Army's senior man on the ground day in and day out in Iraq, will come home early and be replaced by Lieutenant General David Patraeus, a Bush favorite.
General Patraeus has served twice in Iraq already. From 2004 to 2005, he was given the crucial task of building and training Iraq's security forces.
Before that he commanded the 101st Airborne Division during the assault on Iraq in 2003.
Patraeus would likely be promoted to four star rank.
The president is also due to announce soon some moves he his making with senior diplomats.
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad will be nominated to succeed John Bolton as the U.S. representative to the U.N. and Ryan C. Crocker the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan will be nominated to succeed Khalizad in Baghdad.
Khalilzad and Abizaid both speak Arabic and their loss will leave fewer senior Americans in Baghdad with solid local language skills.
Visit us at:
http://johnib.wordpress.com/
