Administration Working On Plan B For Iraq

(CBS)  The troop surge has not reached full strength, but the Bush administration has already begun work on a Plan B for after the surge.

Despite the almost daily car bombings — today's killed 25 — commanders in the field report modest progress. But they have also concluded the Iraqi government will not meet any of the benchmarks for political reconciliation among its warring factions, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports in a CBS News exclusive.

As Adm. William Fallon, the overall commander for the Middle East, put it, "reconciliation isn't likely in the time we have available."

Right now, Plan B is nothing more than ideas about how the United States could change course in Iraq. But it is a recognition that both political support and the Army are wearing out.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates hopes to start withdrawing by the end of the year. A complete pullout of troops and equipment would take an estimated 10 months, but would probably trigger the collapse of the Iraqi government.

"I don't think there's the real option to withdraw completely, because it's quite clear the Iraqi government wouldn't survive complete withdrawal," said Daniel Serwer, the former director of the Iraq Study Group.

Just six months ago, the group recommended pulling all combat troops out in 2008. But he says that it no longer possible.

"You're talking about staying from five to 10 more years," he said. "You're not talking about staying a few more months."

At current levels?

"Maybe with some drawdown, but at close to current levels," Serwer said.

Plan B, as it is known, is not an official document. Commanders in the field believe the surge will have to continue into next year, but that military advice is on a collision course with political reality.

[firststate]

mudrose
What color is the sky on your planet? Do others there imagine an Al-Qaeda/Iran connection? Even Orally and the crew at fox noise aren't that stupid. Al-Qaeda is almost exclusively Sunni. In case you've missed it, two of the groups involved in Iraq's civil war, brought to you by bushshit for brains, are the Sunni and the Shia. They've been enemies for ages. It took a tyrant like Saddam to control their bloodlust. His inclusion of the minority Sunni in his government is another reason the majority Shia are so pissed. Iran is a Shia nation and is more likely to ally with the Vatican to restart the Crusades than deal with Al-Qaeda, much less finance them.

If you are determined to seem ignorant, you can save some effort and talk about the WMD's that we're going to find any day, now. You could even talk about the notarized contract among Saddam and Bin Laden for 9/11 that tricky dicky the second found in Iraq with the receipt for the uranium from Niger.

[mh4cbs1]

passerby2:

We wouldn't be in this mess IF:

The CIA didn't overthrow democratically elected Mossadegh in 1953 to install the brutal Shah of Iran (which led to the isalmic fundamentalist revolution in 1980).

The US government didn't pump billions into Egypt to support dictator Mubarak

The US didn't spend billions each year on Israel, ignoring the plight of the Palestinians. Still not peace after so many decades.

The US didn't help our friend Saddam rise to power and back him in the 1980s War with Iran

The US didn't prop up the Royal Saudi dictatorship, and move out troops onto their holy land in Gulf War I.

The US didn't impose murderous sanctions on the Iraqi people throughout the 1990s.

The US didn't collude with the dictators to take their Oil on the cheap.

The US didn't LIE about WMDs and Al Qaeda links in order to INVADE and OCCUPY their land.

The US didn't whisk people off to Abu Gharib to be tortured.

The US didn;t bomb Bhagdad and Falluja into ruins.

The US troops didn't have bad apple soldiers that kill civilians at check points or rape and kill innocent civilians.

.....

Republican Ron Paul was right! The terrorists Don't Hate "our freedom", they hate what we have done and continue to do in THEIR lands.

[grazinggoat]

Come on, why a plan B? why is it a plan B. Everything is working. Stay the course, it's working. Or Maybe Rick isn't chirping loud enough. Rick you are spending too much time on this blog...

-Let the Generals stop all drawing for plan B.

ChirpingRick is gonna double effort in going to church and kneeling on muddy roads and simulate the via-dolorosa twice a day, in his backyard.

-arse008 will not blog on Shabbat anymore, and you guys you won't have to draw a Plan B, less a plan C. Let's have a glass of wine and celebrate the scam-victory of Haliburton, and the Enron and other tied-ties-CEO's corporations a la ******** Cheney's...

-Badaxmothrffo... will enlist and bring an UZI gun that he can throw in the Euphrates river after killing the little girls in Bagdad. He will feel pity by times (when he's not drunk) and pay a big $200 by body he causes to bleed on the streets of Baghdad...

[mikealford3]

Why can't we just have Americans in our government offices? Whether they are black, white, green, brown, or purple; why do we have to have Repubes or Democraps? If the illegals can march in the streets for "their rights" why doesn't the rest of America come together in Washington and march from the Capital to the White House and take back our country?

[long_rider]

What is all of this talk about a "plan B", I haven't seen plan A yet.

Impeach the chimp, and his co-presicent.

[tomster1960]

I'm so pissed off, I really can't get my thoughts together. I agree with the comment below that he will go down as the worst president in our lifetime. I pitty the next president that has to deal with this mess.

[randalds]

The Republican Party, starting with the infamous %u201Ccontract with America%u201D, has been in almost total lock-step in recent years and with them being in FULL control of our government throughout this administration, their refusal to oversee their own party has lead to the worst/most corruption I have seen in my life, not to mention the present Iraq fiasco.

Posted by jn122736 at 11:20 AM : May 23, 2007

Also as a result of marching lock-step the neoconservative wing of the republican party was able to take control by a combination of appealing to party loyalty above all else (much as the communists of the 20's and 30's did in the Soviet Union) and fear of the party's power once it gained strength (again like the Soviet Communists, except this time in the 50's - 70's). Of course this meant the nearly complete crushing of the real republicans, the traditional conservatives, who have seen their party hi-jacked right out from underneath them over the past 20 years or so (starting with Reagan and his self-named "11th Commandment" of never speaking ill of a fellow republican). Traditional republicans like Goldwater, Ford, and even Nixon would be appalled at what the republican party has devolved into.

[thewatcher6]

So much is written but very little said, We trash our president while brave men die, Sometime it is better to shut up.

WMD, why nobody never ask the question, "what happen to them?"
We know how we got there, the question is how can we get out with our honor intact. Once we leave we bring the war home.
The war will began in the streets of the USA.
Bush did not draw first blood.

[jn122736]

Part 2:
In partial defense of those who voted for the Iraq invasion:

There were many democrats AND republicans who would have voted differently on the Iraq invasion if they had had access to ALL the information that the administration had, instead of the cooked/doctored variety they were given.

This, while not acceptable from those in such critically important positions, is all too human. The natural anger and frustration of Americans (including congress) over 911 were utilized to the fullest by the Bush administration.

My problem at this time is in understanding why Congress feels it must give in on the funding question. They sent Bush a bill with full funding and he CHOSE not to fund the troops by vetoing the bill. If he refused to bring the troops home before they are imperiled by the lack of funds then he could be immediately removed from office (malicious endangerment) just as if he had murdered someone with a handgun.

[jn122736]

Re.: Posted by edjohn66 at 09:21 AM : May 23, 2007
--------------
edjohn66,%u2026.With respect to your independent comment, I disagree with your contention that,

%u201CThe whole purpose of having an opposition party is that it will OPPOSE what the government does%u201D.

I would change the word OPPOSE to read QUESTION.
I think both parties are too inclined to oppose any legislation simply because it comes from the other side, and not necessarily because it is good or bad per se.

The Republican Party, starting with the infamous %u201Ccontract with America%u201D, has been in almost total lock-step in recent years and with them being in FULL control of our government throughout this administration, their refusal to oversee their own party has lead to the worst/most corruption I have seen in my life, not to mention the present Iraq fiasco.
Continued: