George Packer has a must read in the New Yorker today. According to Packer, the surge has pretty much been a failure. Now we have to plan for defeat. Packer goes through the options replete with the painful consequences for each plan.
Packer begins by reviewing the status of the surge and how it has been portrayed in the press:
The media have largely followed the Administration’s myopic approach to the war, and there is likely to be intense coverage of the congressional testimony. But the inadequacy of the surge is already clear, if one honestly assesses the daily lives of Iraqis. Though the streets of Baghdad are marginally less lethal than they were during 2006, sixty thousand Iraqis a month continue to leave their homes, according to the International Organization for Migration, joining the two million who have become refugees and the two million others displaced inside Iraq.
Not only has the surge failed to improve security or create the space necessary for political compromise, it has in fact given the militias space to arm themselves:
The militias, which have become less conspicuous as they wait out the surge, are nevertheless growing in strength, as they extend their control over neighborhoods like Ahmed’s. In the backstreets, the local markets, the university classrooms, and other realms beyond the reach of American observers or American troops, there is no rule of law, only the rule of the gun. The lives of most Iraqis are dominated by a complex array of militias and criminal gangs that are ruthlessly competing with one another, and whose motives for killing are more often economic or personal than religious or ideological
Packer then starts in on some of our defeat scenarios. One that has gotten relatively little press attention is the concept of the phased transition. According to Packer
In June, a new center-left think tank, the Center for a New American Security, issued a report called "Phased Transition." It envisions a gradual shift from the current strategy of taking the lead in counter-insurgency operations to a "support" role in Iraq.
But Packer is skeptical that such as transition can be competently executed by the Bush Admin. Bush appears to lack the skills or sensitivity to pull a phased transition off. In fact, Bush appears to be doing the opposite of what is needed. According to Colin Kahl, a professor of security studies at Georgetown,
"If Bush keeps the pedal on the surge until the end of his Presidency, we will rocket off the cliff, and it guarantees that the next President will get elected on a pledge to get us out of Iraq now."
Packer goes on analyzing several different scenarios, each more depressing and grisly than the previous. Miserable as it is, I strongly recommend reading the entire piece.