Lessons From The Leaked Hadley Memo

Prospect: Now, More Talk Of Futility Of Status Quo In Iraq

(The American Prospect)  This column was written by Laura Rozen

---

This Wednesday, the day that President Bush was to meet with Iraqi prime minister Nouri Al Maliki in Jordan, The New York Times published a classified memo prepared by National Security advisor Stephen Hadley and his staff, drawn from Hadley's recent trip to Iraq, that revealed grave doubts about Maliki's ability and willingness to stem the rising violence in Iraq. The memo reveals an administration desperately trying to brainstorm ways to prop up Maliki as head of a reconstituted unity government, but it also hints at another key aspect of recent internal White House deliberations about how to proceed in Iraq: that the Hadley recommendation is not the only option under active consideration by the administration. Indeed, if it becomes untenable to support a unity government — as the memo's authors make clear they believe may happen — there are administration elements advocating a complete abandonment of unity in favor of the Iraqi Shia.

Over Veterans' Day weekend, the entire national security team met for a White House-ordered review of Iraq strategy, as first reported by the Washington Post's Robin Wright. According to my sources, the memo, which was dated November 8 (two days before Veterans' Day), was intended as a starting point for those discussions. While it does not reflect all the positions within the administration over how to proceed in Iraq, the Hadley memo offers clues to the wider debate. Herewith a readers' guide to the plans that are emerging as dominant:

Option 1: Status quo plus. This option, as outlined in the Hadley memo, would be a last-ditch effort to prop up a reconstituted Iraqi government of national reconciliation with 20,000 additional U.S. troops to secure Baghdad. "The immediate obvious task is securing Baghdad," says military analyst Tom Donnelly of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It would be better to introduce more troops [to do so], but if you had to you could take them from [western Iraq's] Anbar [province]. ... I think if we don't produce positive results in Baghdad in six months, the war is over."

The plan would be to try to forge a new and more effective Iraqi government coalition that would include the Sunnis, Kurds and the Shias, while engineering a tilt within Maliki's Shia coalition away from Sadr and toward fellow Shiite leader Ayatollah Abdul Aziz Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and its attendant Badr Brigade militia. (Hakim is scheduled to arrive in Washington next week on an official visit.) The Mahdi Army loyal to radical young Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr would continue to be the enemy. Washington would also engage Saudi Arabia and regional neighbors to encourage Sunni support for Maliki, and Syria and Iran would be pressured to limit their support for combatants.

"Does anyone think at this stage we have ability to build a political base among moderates?" asks Boston University-based military analyst Andrew Bacevich, reflecting on the memo. "We have been trying to do [much of what is in the Hadley memo] for the last three years. Along those lines, it seems to be a policy of 'come on, try harder. Yes, it hasn't worked for three years, but come on, try harder.'"

Option 2: Tilt to the Shias. Among the views advanced at the Veterans' Day weekend meeting was one seemingly at odds with the gist of the Hadley memo: This option, described to me as a fallback position supported by Cheney's office and elements of the National Security Council, would have the U.S. abandon the immediate goal of national reconciliation and instead pick a side — the Shia. The "unleash the Shia" option would have the United States back a Shiite coalition that would include SCIRI leader Hakim and his Badr Brigades as the core of an Iraqi Army under the direct control of Prime Minister Maliki. Even as the United States sided with the Shia, Hadley's memo makes clear that the United States would at the same time press Maliki to distance himself from Sadr and his Mahdi army. Note in particular the Hadley memo's language concerning the importance of rapidly expanding the size of, and Maliki's control over, the Iraqi Army: "Seek ways to strengthen Maliki immediately by giving him additional control over Iraqi forces, although we must recognize that in the immediate time frame, we would likely be able to give him more authority over existing forces, not more forces." Further down, Hadley adds, "Ask Casey to develop a plan to empower Maliki, including ... more forces under Maliki's command and control." Military sources say the key to this control is the Badr Brigades.

Increasingly, we're hearing talk of "picking a winner" or "backing the Shiites versus policing a civil war" from elements in the Pentagon and intelligence community. "The situation requires that the administration abandon its long-held goal of national reconciliation and instead 'pick a winner' in Iraq," the Post's Thomas Ricks and Robin Wright cited a U.S. intelligence official as saying Monday. "He said he understands that means the Sunnis are likely to bolt from the fragile government. 'That's the price you're going to have to pay,' he said."

Option 3: Reduce U.S. forces, hunker down, focus on al Qaeda and Iran, and ride out the civil war under massively reduced goals and expectations. This tracks most closely with the "Redeploy and Contain" option reportedly under consideration by the Iraq Study Group, that would have U.S. troops move to fortified bases in or outside of Iraq, periodically coming out to launch counterinsurgency strikes against al Qaeda in western Iraq's al Anbar province, and provide ramped up training and logistical support to Iraqi forces, while drawing down over the coming year to 60,000 to 70,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The Hadley memo, with its advocacy of deploying an additional 20,000 U.S. troops to Iraq in the coming weeks, would suggest the White House is not amenable to this option without another effort to surge troops to secure Baghdad.

At this moment, it is not clear who leaked the Hadley memo and why. But one possibility is that it might have been a shot in a bureaucratic turf war aimed at making people talk about the futility of Option 1, national reconciliation, with the intention of accelerating Option 2 or 3. Even if that wasn't the intent of the leak, it may be the result: Hours after the memo was published, Bush's long-planned meeting with Maliki was delayed. Asked if the delay was due to the memo's revelations that the White House lacked confidence in Maliki, White House advisor Dan Bartlett was cited by the Washington Post saying, "Absolutely not." A rare public expression of certainty in an increasingly murky landscape.

[sharncedar]

These sick murderers have done one thing pretty consistently - they put their own actions and motivations onto others. So when dictator Bush was starting a war in total defiance of the constitution, he talked daily about "dictator Saddam". When he was killing and torturing Sunnis and destroying whole cities like Fallujah, he talked daily about "violent and ruthless insurgents".


Now that piece of garbage is questioning this - "Maliki's ability and willingness to stem the rising violence in Iraq. "

As usual, its the killer fratboy Bush and his henchmen who are not capable or willing to stop the violence in Iraq, not Maliki who I'm sure would love to stop the violence, being it his country and the country of his children.

It makes me so tired, what's next, blame the American people for that huge debt that fool spent. Just wait, he will.

[sharncedar]

"pick a side %u2014 the Shia"

Sigh. They are getting it wrong again. How can a group of people be wrong 100% of the time. How. At least the stupidest team in the world would be right sometimes. Not these guys. sigh.

The correct option is to set the Sunnis back into power - that is the formula for a stable Iraq, it worked before, it would work again. Otherwise the Kurds will be a huge problem, d*mn I'm tired of seeing these idiots blunder and then knowing in a few years it will go badly, then it does, and then they blunder again.

100% wrong, I've never seen this kind of leadership before.

[rawehage]

The U.S. has no intention of leaving Iraq; just ask U.S. oil companies.

Iraq envoy: U.S. oil investment waiting on legal changes
Last Update: 6:06 PM ET Oct 9, 2006

HOUSTON (MarketWatch) -- U.S. oil companies are slowly building their relationships with the Iraqi government in anticipation of a new legal regime that will allow them to invest there, the Iraqi ambassador to the U.S. said Monday.

[egresor]

these guys are so inept!

the leaks are most likely done by the administration itself to gauge public reaction before commiting to anything.

pick a side? the conflicts in Iraq now would be nothing compared to what it would be if the Sunni's were excluded. there would be full-blown civil war and what is happening now would seem like minor scrimages in comparison. shades of Bosnia (and that region).

I have a question. name one category that bush has done a competent job? they are the most inept administration in a very long time (possibly ever). they've destroyed an economy on the road to true stability, severely damaged foreign relations, brought the threat of terrorism to unprecedented heights, broken the law -- invaded our privacy, and offended even those who want to support us. what haven't they done wrong?

now it's probably floating leaks around to see how they'll play with the public. I told a friend right after the invasion of Iraq that the Bush administration was inept and sadly they have proven me correct. they ignored the experts and clung to their ideology in the face of all and denyed any failures as being failures of their policies and when called to task for it--- blamed their critics as being un-patriotic.

there is a term for them..... extremist ideologues.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[feelfree1]

Stephen Hadley holds significant responsibility for stampeding the U.S. into this disaster, and in its inept conduct. There is no reason to have any confidence in Mr. Hadley's contributions towards planning a way out. It is astounding to see that such well educated people as our political elite, can be so helpless.

Who would Jesus Blame?

-The neo-con rats are jumping ship, now blaming the Bush Regime for the Iraq debacle (as if they were an independent group).

-The Bush Regime is still trying to blame "the terrorists" for their many profound failures, as well as the Iraqi puppet-leaders, and the "terrorist appeasing Liberals", while also continuing to claim that we are "winning".

-The Democrats are trying to blame the Iraqi puppet-leaders and their forces, as much as possible, afraid to steep too much blame on the Bush League, for fear of being exposed as complicit in many of the Bush regime's most egregious acts.

Who would Jesus blame?

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[jimesmith1]

Dear bushrocks1 -- haven't you posted this same comment in just about every blog around? Bush rocks -- hoooray! How cute and sophomoric. Worthy of a bumper sticker next to that faded one saying "child on board". Maybe we can even have a Bush pep rally and all chant in unison "we got spirit, yes we do....." As the world crumbles around his policies, let's just keep smiley faces and should aloud "Bush rocks!"

Here's some serious advice -- get your head out of your arse and see if you can't get enough blood flowing between your ears to come up with a new idea.

If you look up "traitor" in Webster's, you might see a picture of those who blinding followed their political heroes turning their backs on their fellow countrymen and motherland. (i.e. -- uh, just for starters, Germany comes to mind). Here's a hard fact for you to suck on: We are not going to spread democracy and Christianity in all corners of the world. Instead, Bush may have lead this country into the greatest disaster of all times and put into motion events in the Middle East that will be near impossible to keep from turning into a bigger conflict. We have more of a chance of suffering from Bush's policies than all the terrorists combined.

[mrthornman]

bushrocks is Spam. Just ignore it.

[jimesmith1]

What I don't get is this -- We have (had) a great country -- and a great thing going on. We were the moral leaders of the world. We never attacked without being provoked. So, why Iraq? Iraqis were not on the 9/11 planes -- NOT ONE! They were mainly Saudis loyal to Osama and the Taliban. So, why didn't we finish and stabilize Afghanistan. Q: to Bush - where the he** is Osama, my friend? Didn't you promise his head on a silver platter?

And, to all those naive conservatives -- the rest of the world doesn't want our style of life. They are not taping bombs to themselves saying "we don't like their freedoms" -- get real!! They just want their own beliefs, morals and standards. Maybe they don't believe in Jesus or our God and we just have to get over it. Why is that so hard to understand? We may not like them, but guess what -- they are still soveriegn countries not under our constitution.

We went to war for oil. Bush has admitted it himself. Okay, so that's not a sin. But, why didn't we make nice with Saddam after the first Gulf War? He wanted it just as much as we needed it. Wouldn't that have been simpler, less expensive, more advantageous than "shock and awe". The Iranians are laughing in our face for doing their dirty work. Saddam hated Muslim extremism because it was a threat to his ruling class. In retrospect, I am shocked and awed at the incredible ineptitude of Bush and his Administration.

[gaye5]

jimesmith1, just do what I do, the minute I see those first few words of bushrocks1 I skip it.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[mrthornman]

Y-A-W-N

[jimesmith1]

Agreed. I thought B-rocks1 would be fun to debate, but it turns out he would be more aptly named BS-1.

He may act like he is bored - "YAWN", but he is probably a pathethic loser who lives for the internet -- tossing in a s-bomb here and there for attention. I'd bet a lot of $$$ that he gets little respect in the real world and suffers from severe Erectile Dysfunction. B-rocks1, you can get free samples of Viagra -- so cheer up, buddy! Maybe that YAWN was really your wife in the background....

[bluestardad]

Get out of Iraq or send your kids there!@

[catt42701]

If there is going to be a back one side plan then they need to find a way to keep the other sides safe. Give the Sunnies the way and means to immigrate to a Sunni lead country, if they will take them. Would that work. I dont' know. Would I go to war if drafted. Only in a non-combat position. I am not really sure I could kill someone else, even if they were trying to kill me.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[timetrips1]

bushrocks1 - Don't you have any other comments? I guess you are just to STUPID to have a legitimate comment about the story you are posting a comment on. I've been skipping over your same comment for days now. If your are going to "copy" and "paste" the same message over and over, at least have the courtesy to spell and grammar check the stupid thing (or at a minimum have some other idiot proof read the piece of garbage). The way it was written just spotlights your ignorance, stupidity and lack of education (no wonder you like Bush).

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

Do not reply or respond to Bushrocks1 or agnim, neither are worth the trouble