Newsweek: The Petraeus plan will have U.S. forces deployed in Iraq for years to come

[sabra]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17282867/site/newsweek/

In For the Long Haul

The Petraeus plan will have U.S. forces deployed in Iraq for years to come. Does anybody running for president realize that?

Web-exclusive commentary
By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek

Feb. 22, 2007 - The British are leaving, the Iraqis are failing and the Americans are staying—and we’re going to be there a lot longer than anyone in Washington is acknowledging right now. As Democrats and Republicans back home try to outdo each other with quick-fix plans for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and funds, what few people seem to have noticed is that Gen. David Petraeus’s new “surge” plan is committing U.S. troops, day by day, to a much deeper and longer-term role in policing Iraq than since the earliest days of the U.S. occupation. How long must we stay under the Petraeus plan? Perhaps 10 years. At least five. In any case, long after George W. Bush has returned to Crawford, Texas, for good.

But don’t take my word for it. I’m merely a messenger for a coterie of counterinsurgency experts who have helped to design the Petraeus plan—his so-called “dream team”—and who have discussed it with NEWSWEEK, usually on condition of anonymity, owing to the sensitivity of the subject. To a degree little understood by the U.S. public, Petraeus is engaged in a giant “do-over.” It is a near-reversal of the approach taken by Petraeus’s predecessor as commander of multinational forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, until the latter was relieved in early February, and most other top U.S. commanders going back to Rick Sanchez and Tommy Franks. Casey sought to accelerate both the training of Iraqi forces and American withdrawal. By 2008, the remaining 60,000 or so U.S. troops were supposed to be hunkering down in four giant “superbases,” where they would be relatively safe. Under Petraeus’s plan, a U.S. military force of 160,000 or more is setting up hundreds of “mini-forts” all over Baghdad and the rest of the country, right in the middle of the action. The U.S. Army has also stopped pretending that Iraqis—who have failed to build a credible government, military or police force on their own—are in the lead when it comes to kicking down doors and keeping the peace. And that means the future of Iraq depends on the long-term presence of U.S. forces in a way it did not just a few months ago. “We’re putting down roots,” says Philip Carter, a former U.S. Army captain who returned last summer from a year of policing and training in the hot zone around Baquba. “The Americans are no longer willing to accept failure in order to put Iraqis in the lead. You can’t let the mission fail just for the sake of diplomacy.”

Many U.S. military experts now believe that, if there is any hope of stabilizing Iraq, the Petraeus plan is the only way to do it. The critical question now, they say, is whether we have anywhere near enough troops committed to the effort, and whether America has the political will to see the strategy through to the end.

[cassiepriam]

1. Duh. This has been the plan all along.

Bush's Baghdad palace is not temporary.

[calimary]

7. Well, then, that does it. THAT'S where his pResidential library should

be. That's where all his think-tank friends and apologists and all those nice folks installed there to write lots of nice little books further justifying the incompetence and butchery for which he was Poster Child.

Evidently, they still haven't settled on anything in Texas, so why further blight that poor unfortunate state? It has enough karmic crap to carry just unleashing him on the rest of us.

[cassiepriam]

8. LOL. You are a genius! Seriously, the perfect idea. Put that fricken

library in his Baghdad Palace.

[babylonsister]

2. Mission accomplished. nt

[Jacobin]

3. This will result in:

Dozens of catastrophic attacks on the small bases when they are overrun by grouped up militias, one at a time.

2007 is going to be a very bloody year

[Disturbed]

4. The Colonization of Iraq was the plan from the outset.

There was never an exit plan. The Dems in Congress didn't know that?

[leftchick]

5. witness the attack last week

on a US base with 2 dead and 29 wounded some severely. Yep, this is going to be bloody indeed. :(

[enid602]

6. Betray us

I think General Betrayus is Bush's dream general.

[Disturbed]

9. The majority of Dems in Congress will not allow the US

to leave Iraq. They have the perfect excuse to leave the troops there. Cutting funding would be viewed as no supporting the troops. That is their way to avoid leaving Iraq. The US will occupy Iraq forever. There will always be US Troops and Mercs in Iraq in order to maintain stabalization of the region. Also, the oil must be protected. Dems are only playing their game with Iraq.