| Pentagon promotes 'long war' strategy as violence threatens withdrawal
By Alec Russell in Washington
(Filed: 25/02/2006) The Pentagon is aggressively promoting a new strategy for the "long war" against terrorism in which combat units will play second fiddle to diplomats, aid workers and civil servants. When US-led forces swept through Iraq three years ago confidence in the armed forces' ability was sky high and the expectation was that they would establish a bridgehead in the region for the foreseeable future. Now, however, commanders can barely hide their desire to pull every last soldier out of Iraq, away from the bloody counter-insurgency, and focus on a very different strategy to win the "long war" - as the "war on terror" has been renamed. To mounting concern in Washington, Iraq's lurch towards civil war is jeopardising plans for a US withdrawal. The Bush administration insists that it will pull out the troops only when Iraqi forces are in control of the country. But Brig Gen Mark Kimmitt, the deputy director of plans and strategy at US Central Command, which oversees the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, is adamant that the long-term presence of US forces in Iraq hinders the battle against terrorism. "It is our view that if you look at the long war through the narrow lens of Iraq and Afghanistan, you're going to get the problem set wrong and possible solutions wrong as well," he told a briefing. "We have over 200,000 American forces alone in the region. That is not a force presence that we believe will lead to winning this war." In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he added: "We are seen as an antibody in the area. And as a result we have got to have a lighter presence, a less visible presence. It is simply our belief that if we don't need to maintain a large garrison of forces there, then let's not do it." The Pentagon is highlighting four key principles in its strategy, several of which will sound remarkably like the advice from critics of the Iraq war prior to the invasion. First, the Pentagon accepts that to beat al-Qa'eda and its allies requires co-operation with other arms of government, in particular the Treasury and the State Department. "This can't be all about the military. What do you want me to do, bomb the internet?" Brig Kimmitt said, referring to al-Qa'eda's use of the internet to spread its message. "We are not possessive. This is all about partnerships." He salutes the lessons Britain learned running its empire and also the damning assessment of US troops from a British officer, Brig Nigel Aylwin-Foster, who accused them last month of being abject at winning "hearts and minds". "It is old think to think you can do it all by yourself," said Brig Kimmitt. "The British Government understands that pretty well. You all, at least appear to, work more seamlessly between the agencies." The Pentagon had learned from its roles in the Balkans, Vietnam and Central America, but in every new campaign "there are brand new 18-, 19-, 20-year-olds who need to be taught nuance," he added. The other three principles are: to help allies in the Middle East fight off the Islamist terrorist threat; to focus on the last remaining possible sanctuaries for al-Qa'eda; and to reposition US forces to meet the new threat. Such vision is going down well in Washington. But in the past 48 hours it has been overshadowed by fears of a civil war in Iraq. Administration officials balk at talking publicly of civil war, fearing that to concede that Iraq is slipping into sectarian chaos will undermine the chances of a troop withdrawal this year. Yet there is deep concern that they could get caught up in a civil war. "If this breaks badly, then the long war just got longer," said Tom Donnelly, a military analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank. "I can't imagine we would turn our backs and leave." | 
No comments:
Post a Comment