As shown by the war porn story, it's worthwhile to shine a light in some of the less often travelled places in the blogosphere, because things often start there long before they bubble up in to the places where the air is more rarified. Getting these things earlier than the usual suspects is one of the benefits of seeking out bloggers that the vast majority of readers are perhaps just to lazy to seek out. It's just easier to go where everyone else goes.
But you miss a lot of stuff that way, sticking to the well-worn paths. So when Helena Cobban -- where I first found the war porn story back in August, well before it hit the bigger blogs and the rest of the news -- has a post up about an Iraq withdrawal plan proposed by a progressive think tank, I figured it had to be worth checking out.
The plan is published by the Center for American Progress, and is available in PDF format. I thought it might be worth reading and encouraging others to read. Helena knows one of the authors (Lawrence Korb, who was assistant secretary of defense under Reagan) and offers her own assessment, as well as a table summarizing proposed withdrawal plans.
What's interesting right away about the plan is that it's a fairly conservative plan, more conservative by the out-by-2006 idea I had earlier, one that would keep troops in Iraq until the end of 2007. Not exactly what you could call a "cut and run" approach.
That framing plays well, particularly to Bush's audience, but it oversimplifies the real notion of withdrawal, which in this case is also a redeployment, because the author call 20,000 of the 80,000 recommended for withdrawal from Iraq be redeployed to areas in Afghanistan, Africa and Asia, where groups like the Taliban are staging a resurgence or finding fertile ground.
Korb and (Brian) Katulls recommend keeping troops in Iraq through the next Iraqi election in January 2007, and then withdrawing the last troops at the end of 2007. This is interesting because it would provide the GOP with an opportunity to "declare victory" justin time for the 2008 elections, but also because it directly contradicts our long-term plans in Iraq. Korb and Katulls, advise against establishing permanent bases.
An absolutely essential component of clarifying U.S. intentions to enhance our security is an unambiguous announcement by President Bush that the United States will not build permanent military bases in Iraq, counteracting arguments made in recruitment pitches by militants and Iraqi insurgents. Telling the Iraqi public and the world that we do not intend to remain in Iraq forever will also reaffi rm our commitment to supporting a truly democratic Iraq that is sovereign, independent, and unified. (emphasis added)
This bumps up against reports that the U.S. is currently establishing about 14 "enduring bases" in Iraq, in what amounts to a "permanent occupation."
On March 23, 2004, the Chicago Tribune reported on the construction of 14 "enduring bases" in Iraq. The May 22, 2005, Washington Post described the military's plan to consolidate military personnel in Iraq into four massive "contingency operating bases." According to the Congressional Research Service, Emergency Supplemental funds appropriated for military construction in Iraq for fiscal years 2001-2005 total more than $805 million, with the vast majority, more than $597 million, coming in the 2005 fiscal year.
That alone ought to be enough to disabuse anyone of the notion that the Bush administration has any inclination at all towards considering a different course in Iraq.
Whether this plan will work any better than the one I suggested, or the 9-point plan that Helena offered is anyone's guess. What I hope this current plan represents is an increased willingness of people not only to oppose the occupation in Iraq, but to propose reasonable, viable alternatives to the current scenario in Iraq.
Do I think that anyone in the Bush administration is likely to give is the slightest notion, let alone consideration? Of course not, but this conversation isn't about and doesn't include the Bush administration. They're a lost cause at this point. But if the opposition to the Iraq occupation can begin to present alternatives that don't sound as extreme as "cut and run" and that people can understand, there may be a chance of bringing the war in Iraq to an end much sooner than the administration has in mind. That is, if we can change enough minds between now and 2006 and 2008.