Strategic Reset

3:04 pm EST June 25th, 2007 | News | 12 Comments

The Center for American Progress has issued a new report on Iraq Strategy: Strategic Reset: Reclaiming Control of U.S. Security in the Middle East.

Instead of passively waiting for Iraq’s national leaders to make a series of political decisions that they have shown themselves fundamentally incapable of making amid multiple internal conflicts, the United States should adopt a more active stance to advance its interests throughout the Middle East. In short, the United States needs to implement a strategic reset aimed at using U.S. power to protect our core national interests. The four simultaneous steps our country must now take are:

* Adopt policies to accept the reality of Iraq’s fragmentation.
* Implement a phased military redeployment from Iraq in one year.
* Initiate regional security and diplomatic efforts to contain and resolve Iraq’s conflicts while reshaping the geopolitical balance in the region.
* Develop a realistic strategy to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict and stabilize the broader Middle East.

It sure beats the conservative idea that we should just keep hitting our head against the wall.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

12 Responses to “Strategic Reset”

  1. SaveFarris says:
    June 25, 2007 at 3:34 pm

    That’s a mighty-fine list of bullet-points they’ve got there:

    * “Screw ‘Em”.
    * “Retreat!”
    * —Impossible to do since we already retreated in Step 2—
    * Make nice with Yassir & Ahmadinejad.

    Sorry if that seems a bit trite and un-diplomatic, but the CAP isn’t giving anyone much material to work with. It’s hard to debate on this subject seriously when Democratics treat the subject so un-seriously.

  2. Dugger says:
    June 25, 2007 at 3:40 pm

    Excuse me, OW, I speak leftist double talk. I’ll interpret.

    *Adopt policies to accept the reality of Iraq’s fragmentation.

    Translation: Its too complex. Do something that will lead to another Baathist seizing power and murdering millions.

    * Implement a phased military redeployment from Iraq in one year.

    Translation: Surrender in Iraq.

    * Initiate regional security and diplomatic efforts to contain and resolve Iraq’s conflicts while reshaping the geopolitical balance in the region.

    Translation: Throw in some feel-good mumbo jumbo to camouflage that surrender.

    * Develop a realistic strategy to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict and stabilize the broader Middle East.

    Translation: Extort more concessions out of the Jews while ignoring HAMAS’ outrages.

  3. frameone says:
    June 25, 2007 at 3:40 pm

    “It’s hard to debate on this subject seriously when Democratics treat the subject so un-seriously.”

    Oh mercy …

  4. Oliver says:
    June 25, 2007 at 3:54 pm

    Right, like the oh-so-serious Bushies over the last four years. Any more seriousness and we’ll all be dead.

    Do you guys understand that simply because a policy does not endorse the Bush administration’s “policy” it doesn’t make it invalid?

  5. Enlightened Liberal says:
    June 25, 2007 at 4:25 pm

    Oliver, given the administration’s track record one could easily argue that a policy that doesn’t endorse the Bush administration is by inference valid.

  6. M.A. says:
    June 25, 2007 at 4:54 pm

    Who would we be “surrendering” to, anyway? If we were fighting Al-Qaeda to keep them from taking over Iraq, then maybe we could “surrender” to them. But Al-Qaeda is a minor factor in Iraq, and nearly all the violence is home-grown Iraqis fighting for power.

    So if we leave, who are we “surrendering” to? The Iraqis? You think it’s “surrender” to let them decide who runs the country?

  7. bill l. says:
    June 25, 2007 at 5:07 pm

    The world through the wingers eyes.

  8. Duros62 says:
    June 25, 2007 at 5:16 pm

    Um… not to nitpick, there, farris, but Yassir’s deyad.

  9. Realist says:
    June 25, 2007 at 5:30 pm

    “Implement a phased military redeployment from Iraq in one year” is pretty straightforward.

    On the other hand, the other three steps are all “Eliminate World Hunger” type statements. They all sound impressive, but what are the specific plans to accomplish each of them?

    Or is the fact that these semi-generic suggestions came from a left-leaning think tank all the proof you need that they’ll be just awesome and better than anything those stupid conservatives could offer?

  10. Quaker in a Basement says:
    June 25, 2007 at 7:47 pm

    And please allow me to further translate Mr. Dugger’s Conservative Mumble-Jumble back into plain English:

    *Adopt policies to accept the reality of Iraq’s fragmentation.

    Translation: Its too complex. Do something that will lead to another Baathist seizing power and murdering millions.

    Re-translation: Why aren’t our simple solutions working? Let’s blame the libs for not cheering loud enough.

    * Implement a phased military redeployment from Iraq in one year.

    Translation: Surrender in Iraq.

    Re-translation: Unless we decide it’s time to redeploy. Then we’ll call it Victory!, or else blame it on the libs for stabbing us in the back.

    * Initiate regional security and diplomatic efforts to contain and resolve Iraq’s conflicts while reshaping the geopolitical balance in the region.

    Translation: Throw in some feel-good mumbo jumbo to camouflage that surrender.

    Re-translation: Look! Iran!!

    * Develop a realistic strategy to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict and stabilize the broader Middle East.

    Translation: Extort more concessions out of the Jews while ignoring HAMAS’ outrages.

    Re-translation: We’ll just keep looking the other way and hope that will win us some Jewish votes.

  11. frameone says:
    June 26, 2007 at 1:20 pm

    I think Matthew Yglesias just about nails in a post today:

    …the right is fundamentally incapable of seeing objective limits to US military capacity or domestic political debate as actually vital to the appropriate conduct of national security policy.”

    As he says, obsessed with the idea that it was liberals who lost the Vietnam War for America, rather than recognizing the limits of American military power in resolving civil conflicts and guerilla wars, they will continue to make the same mistakes over and over and over. In a desperate bid to prove their own crack pot theories correct they will continue to make the world a more dangerous and unstable place to live.

  12. Nimrod Gently says:
    June 26, 2007 at 6:15 pm

    Stop saying “surrender”, for the love of humanity! Are you people completely insane?