Over In The Forgotten War

Speaking of Iraq, it turns out that the military understands that their only chance to keep the lid off the cauldron is to keep every available troop in Baghdad.

In a change of plans, American commanders in Iraq have decided to keep their forces concentrated in Baghdad when the buildup strategy ends next year, removing troops instead from outlying areas of the country.

The change represents the military's first attempt to confront its big challenge in 2008: how to cut the number of troops without sacrificing security.

The shift in deployment strategy, described by senior U.S. military officials in Iraq and Washington, is based on concerns that despite recent improvements, the capital could again erupt into widespread violence without an imposing American military presence.

Smells like progress!

The worst part of this is what it presages. By taking troops out of the outlying areas, particularly in the Sunni triangle around Anbar province, you're essentially ceding that territory over to well-armed militias.

The new planning is not without risk and controversy. The change in U.S. deployment strategy is likely to shift the balance of political power in Iraq by putting much greater authority over provincial affairs in the hands of local and regional officials. That will increase their influence and offset the authority of the Shiite-dominated central government in Baghdad.

That basically creates the soft partition that Joe Biden is always screaming about. But it's not that simple. The Sunnis in Anbar actually want a return to national rule. With the aid of American money and know-how, the Sunnis are organizing themselves into a force that threatens the Maliki government.

Officers who've served in Iraq warn that the Great Awakening could be transitory. "The Sunni insurgents are following a 'fight, bargain, subvert, fight' approach to get what they want," said one colonel. So Americans need to explore whether U.S. forces are courting long-term strategic success, or if the expedient cash surge is leading U.S. forces into a new phase of conflict that could engulf the region and create a perfect storm.

We're playing with a lot of fire. We have the Shiite forces biding their time, led by a ruthless group of young militiamen. We have Turkey routinely incurring into Iraqi air space, with the help of the US military, to pound PKK rebels, and at any point that conflict has the potential to turn into another front of the war. Meanwhile the actual military strategy is to push the Shiites and Sunnis into further conflict:

The new U.S. military view worries officials in the Iraqi government who fear their power will be diminished. The ruling Shiite Muslim bloc already has expressed concern over U.S. plans to hand over security responsibilities to recently recruited police forces, particularly in Sunni Muslim strongholds such as Anbar where the new officers are mostly Sunnis.

But the day-to-day commander in Iraq, Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, and his staff believe that the increasing competence of provincial security and political leaders will put pressure on the government in Baghdad that "will breed a better central government," said his chief of staff, Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson.

"There are different schools of thought here," Anderson said in an interview in his office at the U.S. military headquarters at Camp Victory, outside the capital. "Our school of thought is provincial capacity will ultimately lead to enhanced central government capacity. That's our view."

That's madness. This isn't a situation where you can run ads or try to pick off certain legislators in elections. This is a thousand year-old struggle at the root, and there's a fine line between pressuring the central government and antagonizing them. I know that media figures and politicians fly into Baghdad, hence the reason to keep that area relatively under control. But this is being done at the expense of long-term stability, and if that falls through, you have heavily armed camps ready for civil war. This is bad.