Rumsfeld's Memo - two days before resignation

[GeorgeHamilton]

I am curious how a classified memo leaks out, but none the less.....

Nov. 6, 2006

SUBJECT: Iraq — Illustrative New Courses of Action

The situation in Iraq has been evolving, and U.S. forces have adjusted, over time, from major combat operations to counterterrorism, to counterinsurgency, to dealing with death squads and sectarian violence. In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough. Following is a range of options:


ILLUSTRATIVE OPTIONS

Above the Line: (Many of these options could and, in a number of cases, should be done in combination with others)

¶Publicly announce a set of benchmarks agreed to by the Iraqi Government and the U.S. — political, economic and security goals — to chart a path ahead for the Iraqi government and Iraqi people (to get them moving) and for the U.S. public (to reassure them that progress can and is being made).

¶Significantly increase U.S. trainers and embeds, and transfer more U.S. equipment to Iraqi Security forces (ISF), to further accelerate their capabilities by refocusing the assignment of some significant portion of the U.S. troops currently in Iraq.

¶Initiate a reverse embeds program, like the Korean Katusas, by putting one or more Iraqi soldiers with every U.S. and possibly Coalition squad, to improve our units’ language capabilities and cultural awareness and to give the Iraqis experience and training with professional U.S. troops.

¶Aggressively beef up the Iraqi MOD and MOI, and other Iraqi ministries critical to the success of the ISF — the Iraqi Ministries of Finance, Planning, Health, Criminal Justice, Prisons, etc. — by reaching out to U.S. military retirees and Reserve/National Guard volunteers (i.e., give up on trying to get other USG Departments to do it.)

¶Conduct an accelerated draw-down of U.S. bases. We have already reduced from 110 to 55 bases. Plan to get down to 10 to 15 bases by April 2007, and to 5 bases by July 2007.

¶Retain high-end SOF capability and necessary support structure to target Al Qaeda, death squads, and Iranians in Iraq, while drawing down all other Coalition forces, except those necessary to provide certain key enablers for the ISF.

¶Initiate an approach where U.S. forces provide security only for those provinces or cities that openly request U.S. help and that actively cooperate, with the stipulation being that unless they cooperate fully, U.S. forces would leave their province.

¶Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Fallujah when they pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior. Put our reconstruction efforts in those parts of Iraq that are behaving, and invest and create havens of opportunity to reward them for their good behavior. As the old saying goes, “If you want more of something, reward it; if you want less of something, penalize it.” No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence.

¶Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Government.

¶Withdraw U.S. forces from vulnerable positions — cities, patrolling, etc. — and move U.S. forces to a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) status, operating from within Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need assistance.

¶Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and Coalition forces (start “taking our hand off the bicycle seat”), so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country.

¶Provide money to key political and religious leaders (as Saddam Hussein did), to get them to help us get through this difficult period.

¶Initiate a massive program for unemployed youth. It would have to be run by U.S. forces, since no other organization could do it.

¶Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis. This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not “lose.”

¶Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) — go minimalist.

Below the Line (less attractive options):

¶Continue on the current path.

¶Move a large fraction of all U.S. Forces into Baghdad to attempt to control it.

¶Increase Brigade Combat Teams and U.S. forces in Iraq substantially.

¶Set a firm withdrawal date to leave. Declare that with Saddam gone and Iraq a sovereign nation, the Iraqi people can govern themselves. Tell Iran and Syria to stay out.

¶Assist in accelerating an aggressive federalism plan, moving towards three separate states — Sunni, Shia, and Kurd.

¶Try a Dayton-like process.

So what do you all think?

 

[GeorgeHamilton]

By the way, here is a link

article

 

[GeorgeG]

It sounds a bit like political spin damage control, but it does make more sense than what we're doing now.

 

[GeorgeHamilton]

It sounds a bit like political spin damage control, but it does make more sense than what we're doing now.

I considered the possibility that Rumsfeld or one of his staffers were the leakers of the classified memo.

 

[salmoneous]

The situation in Iraq has been evolving, and U.S. forces have adjusted, over time, from major combat operations to counterterrorism, to counterinsurgency, to dealing with death squads and sectarian violence.

I think that to be the key point in the the memo. There are many who believe the President when he keeps tellings us our soldiers are in Iraq to fight terrorist. They aren't. They are there to deal with "death squads and sectarian violence".

That's not what we sent them there to do. They accomplished their mission. Let's bring them home heroes.

 

[TheDoctor]

Rumsfeld knew that he was on the way out just before this memo was written. None of these suggestions are new but they do show that he is clueless as to how to turn things around in Iraq.

If bush had fired and replace Rumsfeld before the election, then the GOP may have kept control of the Senate. In any event, this memo is just further evidence that things are not going well in Iraq.

BTW, both Time and Newsweek have covers where they ask if bush is going to listen to the Baker-Hamiliton Commission report which is due out on Wednesday. From the silly summit in Jordan, I doubt that bush is going to budge from his stay the course plans.

 

[TheDoctor]

This is amusing. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/05/milbank-rumsfeld-memo/

OLBERMANN: .... How do you explain the discrepancy between what the Defense Secretary wrote in the memo, and what the President himself was saying on the eve of the midterms?

MILBANK: Oh, I don’t think we’re giving Don Rumsfeld enough credit for this. This is a classic. This is headed for the hall of fame of cover-your-*** memo writing in Washington, when we’ve already had a lot of those. Of course there’s a discrepancy between what the Secretary of Defense was saying and what the President was saying. But look at what he’s done here, is he’s listed every conceivable option so that he can now, and for future historians, say whatever the outcome in iraq, ‘Well I recommended we go in that direction.’ Because he has recommended increasing troops, decreasing troops, staying the same, adding trainers, just about every possible permutation.

OLBERMANN: Would that have been written with an expectation that he was not going to be retained? What would have happened if the Republicans had retained both the House and the Senate and there’d been no need to show Rumsfeld the door? Would this memo have not been a noose in which Mr. Rumsfeld would have found his neck?

MILBANK: Well, then his loyalists wouldn’t have leaked the memo. It seems pretty clear that this was something of an authorized leak by Rumsfeld’s people in order to protect his legacy here.