U.S. Shifts Iraq Focus (similar to Biden's "soft partition" approach)

[sabra]

Source: WSJ

The Bush administration is quietly moving toward a major shift in Iraq policy, driven by successes in formerly intractable insurgent strongholds combined with dispiriting failures at fostering national reconciliation.

After almost four years of trying to build Iraq's central government in Baghdad, the U.S. has found that what appears to work best in the divided country is just the opposite. So senior military officials are increasingly working to strengthen local players who are bringing some measure of stability to their communities. The new approach bears some striking similarities to the "soft partition" strategy pushed by senior Democrats, and suggests that despite the often bitter debate in Washington on Iraq policy, a broad consensus on how to move ahead in the war-torn country may be forming.

...

The logical result of the new policy is a profound shift away from the Bush administration's original goal of building a multisectarian democracy in the heart of the Middle East. Instead, the new strategy seems likely to lead to an Iraq with a very weak central government and largely self-governing and homogenous regions. Over the long term the goal is to connect these local leaders to the central government by making them dependent on Baghdad for funds. To qualify for U.S. assistance, local groups must pledge loyalty to the central government, though many Sunni leaders who are working with the U.S. complain the Shiite dominated government is illegitimate.

Some military officials say the local focus seems to be leading to an outcome that looks similar to the "soft partition" or federalism approach advocated by a growing number of Democrats, including Joseph Biden of Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a longshot candidate for president. Senior Bush administration officials, of course, have never used the phrase "soft partition." Instead President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates often refer to the new approach as "bottom-up reconciliation." Yesterday the president expressed hope that the military successes would "pave the way for political reconciliation."

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118881964363216025.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news

[theoldman]

1. In the end Biden and Murtha will be proven right.

[Kagemusha]

3. Uh, 'right' is relative. Maliki's right, we are arming his enemies.

We've just collectively chosen not to care anymore.

[Spinzonner]

2. The problem with that is

that the assets, i.e. the oil, has to be controlled by a third party so that it doesn't become subject to a power struggle with a weak, ineffective central government supposedly in control of it.

And, of course, it's not where the Sunnis are.

Guess who thinks they're going to exercise that control ...

And how long will the Iraqi interest groups stand for that.

[Amonester]

4. I heard the third party's name is...

ExxonMobilTexacoChevronBritishPetroliumetc.

Very little left for the Iraqi people, citizens or union workers...

And the day when there won't be any oil left, what will they all have to do in order to survive? Join the armed forces?