Changing Tactics in Iraq - ENB

News AnalysisBush Shifts Terms for Measuring Progress in Iraq
By DAVID E. SANGERPublished: September 5, 2007WASHINGTON, Sept. 4 NYT

With the Democratic-led Congress poised to measure progress in Iraq by focusing on the central government’s failure to perform, President Bush is proposing a new gauge, by focusing on new American alliances with the tribes and local groups that Washington once feared would tear the country apart.
That shift in emphasis was implicit in Mr. Bush’s decision to bypass Baghdad on his eight-hour trip to Iraq, stopping instead in Anbar Province, once the heart of an anti-American Sunni insurgency. By meeting with tribal leaders who just a year ago were considered the enemy, and who now are fighting Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a president who has unveiled four or five strategies for winning over Iraqis — depending on how one counts — may now be on the cusp of yet another.
It is not clear whether the Democrats who control Congress will be in any mood to accept the changing measures. On Tuesday, there were contentious hearings over a Government Accountability Office report that, like last month’s National Intelligence Estimate, painted a bleak picture of Iraq’s future.
It was the White House and the Iraqi government, not Congress, that first proposed the benchmarks for Iraq that are now producing failing grades, a provenance that raises questions about why the administration is declaring now that the government’s performance is not the best measure of change.
The White House insists that Mr. Bush’s fresh embrace of Sunni leaders simply augments his consistent support of Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.
But some of Mr. Bush’s critics regard the change as something far more significant, saying they believe it amounts to a grudging acknowledgment by the White House of something these critics themselves have long asserted — that Iraq will never become the kind of cohesive, unified state that could be a democratic beacon for the Middle East.
“They have come around to the inevitable,” said Peter W. Galbraith, a former American diplomat whose 2006 book, “The End of Iraq,” argued that Mr. Bush was trying to rebuild a nation that never really existed, because Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds had never adopted a common Iraqi identity. “He has finally recognized that fact, and is now trying to work with it,” Mr. Galbraith said Tuesday.
Still, like the other strategies Mr. Bush has embraced, this one is fraught with risks.
There is no assurance that the willingness of Sunnis in Anbar to join in common cause with the United States against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia can be replicated elsewhere in Iraq. And as reporters who have been embedded with units working to enlist the support of the Sunni sheiks have written, in vivid accounts from the scene, there are many reasons to question how sustained the Sunnis’ loyalty will be.
The sheiks and their followers have been barred from the Iraqi military, and it is unclear whether Mr. Maliki’s government will let large numbers of Sunnis sign up in the future. That creates the risk that the Sunni groups, once better trained and better armed, will ultimately turn on the central government or its patron, the American military.
Then there is the worry that, even if Mr. Bush is successful in working in promoting “moderate” Sunnis in Anbar and “moderate” Shiites in the south, the result will be exactly the kind of partitioned state — with all its potential for full-scale civil war — that the White House has long insisted must be avoided.
“Those are real risks, and they explain in part why the strategy was not pursued before late in 2006,” said Peter D. Feaver, a Duke University professor who, as a member of the National Security Council staff at the White House until he left this summer, was one of the architects of the “New Way Forward,” the plan Mr. Bush unveiled in January.
“But the first principle we embraced in the new strategy is that Iraq is a mosaic,” Mr. Feaver said, “and that the risks of approaching it that way were deemed worth taking, given the alternative.”
The White House insists that by flying into the tribal areas, Mr. Bush is not undercutting Mr. Maliki or cutting him loose. Instead, White House officials say that ever since his January speech, Mr. Bush has been pursuing a dual strategy, pressing for “top down” change from Baghdad as well as “bottom up” change from the provinces.
The current focus on the provinces, they say, reflects the fact that the White House overestimated what could be achieved by Mr. Maliki and his government, and underestimated the degree to which the local tribes developed a deep hatred for Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni Arab extremist group that American intelligence agencies have concluded is led by foreigners. The extent of its links to Osama bin Laden’s network is not clear.
“It’s not that they love us Americans,” said one senior administration official. “It’s that Al Qaeda was so heavy-handed, taking out Sunnis just because they were smoking a cigarette. In the end, that may be the best break we’ve gotten in a while.”
As he flew from Iraq to Australia on Monday, Mr. Bush cast the Sunni leaders he had met in the deserts of Anbar in the most positive light possible.
“They were profuse in their praise for America,” he told reporters on Air Force One, according to a pool report. He said they “had made the decision that they don’t want to live under Al Qaeda,” adding that “they got sick of them.”
Mr. Bush, of course, has had similar public praise for just about every Iraqi leader he has met, even a few leaders now disparaged by White House officials as unreliable, powerless or two-faced.
Mr. Bush himself has told associates that in the end, the Iraq experiment depends on whether Mr. Maliki and his aides are truly willing to share power, or whether they are determined to keep the Sunnis down.
For now, however, the White House is arguing that the ground-up relationships they are building in places like Anbar are more important than keeping a scorecard of legislation passed or stalled in Baghdad. Whether that argument is enough to keep a few wavering Republicans on board may determine whether Mr. Bush gets a bit more time to try his latest strategy

UK Basra base exit 'not a defeat'

The withdrawal of British troops from the southern Iraqi city of Basra is not a defeat, Gordon Brown has insisted. The 550 soldiers have handed Basra Palace over to Iraqi control and joined 5,000 troops at the UK's last base, near the airport, outside the city.
The Ministry of Defence said the handover of Basra province was now due in the autumn.
The prime minister said the withdrawal was "pre-planned and organised" and UK forces would take an "overwatch" role.
This will mean troops cannot go out unless requested by Iraqi authorities, but they will still train and mentor Iraqi security forces.
The PM told the BBC's Today programme that the number of British troops in Iraq would remain roughly the same, and that they could "re-intervene" if necessary.
He promised that they would continue to "discharge our duties to the Iraqi people and the international community".
A Downing Street spokesman added the withdrawal was part of the ongoing process of handing over to Iraqi security forces.
He would not confirm this would mean an overall reduction in the number of troops in Iraq, saying this would "depend on the assessment of commanders on the ground over the coming weeks and months".
British troops started pulling out of Basra Palace in southern Iraq on Sunday night, and the MoD confirmed the withdrawal was complete on Monday.
It added in a statement said: "Handing over Basra Palace to the Iraqi authorities has long been our intention, as we have stated publicly on numerous occasions."
Maj Mike Shearer, British spokesman in Basra, said a bugler from Four Rifles led the advance at 0100 local time.
Our decisions in Basra reflect the situation on the ground, above all the growing capacity of the Iraqi security forces, and are signed off by the coalition and the Iraqi government David Miliband Foreign Secretary
He added: "There were no major incidents during the operation and all troops were back at the continuing operating base by midday today Iraqi time."
The MoD said UK forces would now operate from their base at Basra Air Station and "retain security responsibility" for Basra until the full handover. The military will continue to train Iraqi troops.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband said: "Our decisions in Basra reflect the situation on the ground, above all the growing capacity of the Iraqi security forces, and are signed off by the coalition and the Iraqi government."
The head of Iraqi security forces in Basra province, General Mohan Tahir, gave details of the withdrawal at his first news conference in the city.
He said Iraqi troops were now in control of Basra Palace.
'Highly symbolic'
BBC correspondent Richard Galpin in Baghdad said this was a "highly symbolic moment, marking the end of Britain's physical military presence in any Iraqi city".
Over the past year British forces have handed over control of three Iraqi southern provinces, with only Basra province remaining under their control.
The security situation in the city will be watched closely, as there are concerns rival Shia factions could vie for control.
Former Foreign Office official Rory Stewart, who served as deputy governor of two southern Iraqi provinces from 2003 to 2004, told the BBC's Have Your Say programme that "we simply do not have any control over southern Iraq and that has been the situation in my mind for about two-and-a-half years now".
'Necessary step'
The Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, told BBC News 24 he thought the pull-out marked the end of British troops' role in Iraq.
I see this as a necessary step towards what I believe to be the withdrawal which would be in the interests of British forces Sir Menzies Campbell Liberal Democrat leader
He said: "It's an admission that the sort of role which has been performed from Basra Palace is no longer effective.
"I see this as a necessary step towards what I believe to be the withdrawal which would be in the interests of British forces."
Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said the forces' families would want to know every possible precaution had been taken to maximise the troops' safety during this period.
"Our troops must not be put at needless risk to satisfy the political needs of Gordon Brown's government. Any moves must be based upon the military reality on the ground," he said.

UK general attacks US Iraq policy

The head of the British army during the Iraq invasion has said US post-war policy was "intellectually bankrupt". In a Daily Telegraph interview, former chief of the general staff, Gen Sir Mike Jackson, added that US strategy had been "short-sighted".
He said former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld was "one of the most responsible for the current situation".
The Ministry of Defence said Sir Mike was a private citizen who was entitled to express his views.
The US Department of Defense said: "Divergent viewpoints are a hallmark of open, democratic societies."
Sir Mike told the Daily Telegraph that Mr Rumsfeld's claim that US forces "don't do nation-building" was "nonsensical".
We should have kept the Iraqi security services in being Gen Sir Mike Jackson
He criticised the decision to hand control of planning the administration of Iraq after the war to the Pentagon.
He also described the disbanding of the Iraqi army and security forces after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as "very short-sighted".
"We should have kept the Iraqi security services in being and put them under the command of the coalition," he said.
Mehdi army
The Telegraph reports that in Sir Mike's autobiography Soldier, which is being serialised in the paper, he said the US approach to fighting global terrorism was "inadequate" as it focused on military power rather than diplomacy and nation-building.

In the book, Sir Mike also said Mr Rumsfeld had refused to deploy enough troops to uphold law and order in Iraq and had rejected plans for administering Iraq drawn up by the US State Department, the paper says.
The criticism comes as the US military said an order from radical Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to his Mehdi army militia to freeze operations for six months would allow coalition forces to concentrate their attentions on al-Qaeda.
A US statement said the instruction would mean fewer kidnappings, killings and attacks.
Sir Mike, who is now retired, also defended the record of British troops in Iraq after claims by US officials that UK forces had failed.
He said: "What has happened in the south, as throughout the rest of Iraq, was that primary responsibility for security would be handed to the Iraqis once the Iraqi authorities and the coalition were satisfied that their state of training and development was appropriate.
"In the south we had responsibility for four provinces. Three of these have been handed over in accordance with that strategy. It remains just in Basra for that to happen."
His comments follow a series of critical remarks from US officials about the British attitude towards Iraq.
'Strain on operation'

US military adviser Gen Jack Keane said last week that American commanders had expressed "frustration" over the prospect of UK withdrawal.
Divergent viewpoints are a hallmark of open, democratic societies and that tradition is part of the military culture and ethos US Department of Defense
BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood said Sir Mike's comments may put further strain on the British-US operation in Iraq.
Sir Mike's criticisms were backed by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former Conservative foreign secretary and defence secretary.
Sir Malcolm told the BBC: "I think one of the most fundamental criticisms is not just that Rumsfeld was incompetent - which he was - but it was actually his boss, George Bush, who actually made the extraordinary decision to put the Pentagon and Rumsfeld in control of political nation-building after the actual war ended."
A spokeswoman for the US State Department said she would not comment on Sir Mike's views.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said Sir Mike's remarks reinforced his view that British troops should leave Iraq as soon as is practically possible.
He told BBC News 24 that Sir Mike was "a man well known for speaking his mind and not afraid to ruffle American feathers".
Last week, Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote to Mr Campbell, rejecting the Lib Dem leader's call for a timetable for withdrawing UK troops.