Memorandum
To: The National Security Community
From: Rand Beers
Re: The President’s Speech on Iraq

I’m sure many of you shared the disappointment and frustration that I felt Wednesday evening watching the President’s address to the nation. In the days following the mid-term elections and with the release of the Iraq Study Group Report many of us had hoped that there was an opening for genuine bipartisan cooperation and a new strategy in Iraq. Unfortunately, rather then describing a change in strategy, what the President outlined was a shift in tactics.

In response I outline below the key elements of a speech that I would have liked to have heard the President make Wednesday on what a more effective path forward might look like in Iraq.

Level With the American Public and Admit That There are No Good Options Only Less Bad Ones

The situation in Iraq today has spiraled out of control and there are no good policy options that yield a high likelihood of success. We must come at any proposed policy for Iraq with the clearheaded understanding that it may fail. Continuing to pursue the chimera of “victory” when it is no longer possible is bad for America, for Iraqis, and for our fighting men and women.

Focus on a Political Solution

Iraq today is in civil war. Acknowledging this, we can consider two paths. First, the United States could support one side at the expense of the other. This approach runs the risk of exacerbating an already difficult situation internally and sparking even more counterproductive activity among one or another set of Iraq’s neighbors.

The preferable option is one that brings the various parties together under a viable political solution. However, the ability and willingness of Iraq’s current central government to accomplish this task is questionable. Several useful benchmarks for success have been put forward by the President – an oil revenue sharing law, provincial elections, and a more sensible de-Baathification policy, but they lack Maliki’s commitment to accomplish them in a timely fashion. Even then, success would not be assured, and the measures themselves may not be sufficient.

Instead, we also need to think beyond the boundaries of the current government about ways to bring about a political solution. There are several thoughtful, and not necessarily mutually exclusive, options on the table, e.g., a peace conference that brings in international players to help negotiate a political agreement and/or a strong push toward a real federal solution such as the one suggested by Senator Biden and Leslie Gelb. More than anything the United States needs to send a clearer signal that a political solution is our top priority in Iraq and an essential element of our willingness to continue our support.

Begin the Redeployment of American Troops

America’s military presence has bred a culture of dependency in Iraq. As long as American forces are presumed to be there indefinitely, regional actors have less incentive to play a constructive role. Consequently, American troops find themselves caught in the middle, fighting both sides in the civil war, while the internal and external actors remain passive or in active opposition to us and our objectives. An announced, coordinated, and deliberate disengagement of American combat forces may be the only possible approach that obliges the stakeholders to take responsibility for putting Iraq on the road to long-term stability.

There are, however, risks involved in this policy. No one knows for sure what will happen as we reduce our forces. No one wants to leave the Iraqi people in the lurch. Nonetheless, while our military can somewhat constrain the violence, it can never resolve the conflict or provide broad-based security. And, we do not have enough troops, even if we could. In fact, at this point we may be as much a part of the problem as the solution.

Rather then pushing forward with or incrementally escalating a policy that is failing, an alternative is to redefine the playing field. If the Iraqis are the ultimate arbiters of their future, then we cannot be more committed to its form than they are. If our presence is inhibiting Iraqis from owning responsibility, then we need to reduce our forces and accept the attendant risks.

A Diplomatic Offensive for the Middle East

Given the fragility of Iraq’s government, progress toward a political solution will be aided if Iraq’s neighbors refrain from disruptive activities. Defining and gaining agreement to appropriate behavior means establishing a dialogue with Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria.

The Iranians, in particular, have significant interests in Iraq and influence over the Shiite political factions. They have cooperated with the United States in the past in Afghanistan and cannot want a full scale civil war on their border. Engaging them offers the possibility of finding common or parallel interests, recognizing that success may not be achievable. Likewise, with Syria.

Moving beyond Iraq’s immediate neighbors, we cannot continue to leave the Israeli-Palestinian conflict unaddressed. While our involvement in this conflict will not solve the problems we face in Iraq, further engagement there can make it easier to gain support from our Arab friends in Iraq and other areas. Realistically, we are unlikely to see a peace agreement in the near-term, but, historically, engagement alone has had value and reduced the level of violence.

A Refocusing on Broader Strategic Priorities

America faces grave security challenges all over the world. In Afghanistan the Taliban is resurgent. On the Afghan-Pakistani border Al Qaeda still operates with little interference, and the broader movement remains active and is expanding elsewhere. Iran is developing nuclear weapons and increasing its influence throughout the Middle East. North Korea is now a nuclear power. In addition, our standing in the world has been diminished, our ability to mobilize friends and allies weakened, and our commitment to human rights and the rule of law challenged.

Iraq has now dominated the national stage for four years as a political and military issue. It has taken the time and focus of our political leadership away from other significant political issues at home and abroad. It has consumed our military forces, stretching them to the breaking point. And it has stolen resources from other tasks. The President’s proposal, in the face of the reality on the ground in Iraq, a national election and the recommendations of the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group, would appear to commit the country to the Iraq quagmire for another two years.
Waiting for 2008 and the next President is too long. Changing course must continue to be our near-term objective. Congress has a significant role to play. So do you and the American people.

These views are my own but encapsulate a number of the ideas many of you have expressed to me in recent days and weeks. I share them with you as a way to focus our energies and talents in the coming weeks and months. If we agree these are objectives which must be achieved, we can hold our leaders—Democrat and Republican—accountable. If you have other thoughts or ideas, please let me know. Despite being a “lifer” in the Executive Branch, I know there are other places and ways to change policies. Now is the time to use them.