This is not a middle way. Guest Post by "Irack Observer":

In the lead up to his speech on Iraq tonight, Bush is warring with the Democrats over the definition of the “middle way” in Iraq. Bush is attempting to frame the draw down of American forces to pre-surge levels (to around 130,000 by the summer of 2008) suggested by General Petraeus during his testimony this week as both a choice and a compromise bipartisan position. It is neither. The surge was always going to end in the spring and summer of 2008 as units deployed this year began to rotate home. It could not be prolonged without extending Army tours from 15 to 18 months or massively mobilizing the National Guard and Reserve—options nobody thinks are viable. So, the “unsurge” is a structural imperative, not a choice, not a compromise, and not a middle way. Bush’s framing is simply a cynical attempt to spin the inevitable as bold (indeed, the added strain on the Army and Marines from the surge will likely force deeper cuts in the late summer and fall of 2008 regardless of circumstances on the ground, which the administration and Republicans will undoubtedly also try to take credit for).

Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership in Congress is signaling a new willingness to find an Iraq strategy capable of peeling moderate Republicans away from the president perhaps along the lines recommended by the Iraq Study Group or the Center for a New American Security. These proposals would responsibly withdraw most forces conducting combat operations, focus on enhanced training and advising of Iraqi Security Forces, and place considerably more emphasis on diplomacy in Iraq and the region. Along similar lines, Barack Obama gave a major Iraq speech yesterday in Iowa calling for a withdrawal of American forces engaged in combat, while leaving a residual presence to conduct counterterrorism and training activities and emphasizing political measures and international involvement to resolve Iraq’s sectarian disputes. The proof that these are the true “middle way” positions can be found in the rapid attack they have received from Bush’s enablers at AEI and the Weekly Standard.

There are now two scenarios unfolding in Washington. The most likely one is that Bush will go full-steam ahead until the end of his term, keeping the maximum sustainable military presence on the ground in Iraq while portraying incremental reductions forced by structural constraints as “conditions-based withdrawals rooted in success.” However, in the absence of a political breakthrough at the national level in Iraq, which seems unlikely, this is a pathway to strategic and political exhaustion in the United States by late 2008, increasing the odds that the next President will pull the plug altogether. A second scenario would be a real bipartisan middle way emanating from Congress and forced on the administration that would reconceptualize and narrow American interests in Iraq, and begin a transition to a new approach intended to advance these more limited objectives. This is strategically and politically wise, but, to succeed, it would require substantial planning and preparation by the administration and the military now. This isn’t happening and isn’t likely to happen. Given the administration’s twisted interpretation of “middle way” and the organized attacks by surge cheerleaders on realistic bipartisan positions, the administration is on course to leave the next President a mess and no viable plan for smoothly transitioning out of Iraq. Well, at least they will help “end” the war the way it began!

"Irack Observer" is an academic and practitioner who has conducted research on the U.S. military and the Iraq war, has travelled to Iraq, and seeks to inform the ongoing debate.

Posted by Irack Observer at September 13, 2007 08:24 AM