We all agree that 2006 must be a transition year in Iraq. While we may have different ideas about tactics and timing, it's clear we must change course. The vision of strategic redeployment set forward by Brian Katulis and former Reagan Defense Department official Lawrence Korb offers a likely roadmap to success that we can coalesce around.
Katulis and Korb outline their Iraq redeployment strategy in this article. Their strategy shares some similarities with what Feingold talked about today in terms of transitioning from a goal-less fight in Iraq to fighting Al Queda in a global war, and shares some similarities with Murtha's resolution.Katulis and Korb's redeployment strategy involves moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, and Southeast Asia. They write that all National Guard and Reserve units would be demobilized and returned to the United States in 2006, but all of the troops currently slated to be in Iraq in 2006 would still be overseas somewhere-- about half of them staying in Iraq and half going to another "hot spot."
The 70,000 troops remaining in Iraq throughout 2006 would focus more sharply on its core missions: completing the training of Iraqi forces; improving border security; providing logistical and air support to Iraqi security forces; serving as advisers to Iraqi units; and tracking down insurgents and terrorist leaders with smaller, more nimble Special Forces units operating jointly with Iraqi forces.
Interestingly, Hillary Clinton's letter to supporters today struck a very similar note:
I believe we are at a critical point with the Dec. 15 elections that should, if successful, allow us to start bringing home our troops in the coming year, while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities.
But, Rep. John Murtha said on Hardball tonight that according to generals he has spoken to, such as Casey and Abizaid, that preparing the Iraqi troops for a stable Iraq may take twenty five years. So, why would 70,000 troops stay one more year?
Murtha's resolution says:
Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, That:Section 1. The deployment of United States Forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.
Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.
Section 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
Nancy Pelosi endorsed Murtha's resolution today. Section 2 of the Murtha resolution does seem similar to part of the Korb and Ketulis strategy. Korb and Ketulis don't mention anything about diplomacy (Section 3 of Murtha's resolution), yet that would seem like a really important component of the Democratic position on fighting terror globally including in Iraq. Section 1 asks for redeployment at "the earliest practicable date," but Korb and Ketulis have a more specific timeline of troop numbers and dates.
I agree with Dean that we're getting closer to consensus, but it seems like some big gaps still remain.
Here's a post on Talking Points Memo with another analysis of today's developments that posits that we're not likely to have consensus in time for the 2006 election season, though the author thinks anti-war activists might force a consensus.