Caught in the heavy news cycle of the 110th Congress and Bush’s moving around his deck chairs on that sinking ship is publication of the peace plan.
A Real blueprint for Peace in Iraq. – by Ali Allawi, former Iraqi Defence Minister.
The plan, published overnight online at The Independent, UK, has received scant notice in the U.S. media. Today, the proposal has gained wide support in Europe.
“For the first time, a real blueprint for peace in Iraq.”
In a nutshell Mr. Ali Allawi calls for the decentralization of Iraq. A very long preamble setting out the historical background and the mistakes.
The proposal:
“Iraq government calls for regional security conference, including Iraq’s neighbours, to produce an agreement/treaty on non-intervention and combating terrorism. Signatory states will be responsible to a set of markers for commitments.
Purpose: To reduce/ eliminate neighbouring countries’ support for insurgents, terrorists and militias.
* Iraq government calls for preparatory conference on a Middle-Eastern Confederation of States that will examine proposals on economic, trade and investment union. Proposals will be presented for a convention on civil, human and minority rights in the Near East, with a supreme court/tribunal with enforcement powers.
Purpose: To increase regional economic integration and provide minorities in signatory countries with supra-national protection.
* Iraq government calls for an international conference on Iraq that would include Iraq, its regional neighbours, Egypt, the UAE, the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China that would aim to produce a treaty guaranteeing: a. Iraq’s frontiers b. The broad principles of Iraq’s constitutional arrangements
c. Establishing an international force to replace the multinational force over 12 to 18 months. Appointing an international co-ordinator to oversee treaty implementation.
Purpose: To arrange for the gradual and orderly withdrawal of American troops, ensure that Iraq develops along constitutional lines and to confirm Iraq and its neighbours’ common frontiers.
* Iraq government will introduce changes to government by creating two statutory bodies with autonomous financing and independent boards: a. A reconstruction and development council run by Iraqi professionals and technocrats with World Bank/UN support b. A security council which will oversee professional ministries of defence, interior, intelligence and national security.
Purpose: To remove the reconstruction and development programme from incompetent hands and transfer them to an apolitical, professional and independent body. Also to remove the oversight, and command and control of security ministries from politicised party control to independent, professional and accountable body.
* The entire peace plan, its preamble and its details must be put before Iraqi parliament for its approval.”
The reaction:
“From all corners, support grows for Iraq peace plan.”
[S]enior Labour figures joined opposition MPs in welcoming the plan, set out by Iraq’s former defence minister Ali Allawi, for Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey to be given a role in helping to end the increasingly bitter sectarian divisions in Iraq that have helped push the country towards civil war.
Senior military figures and foreign affairs analysts also backed the intervention of Mr Allawi, a senior adviser to the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, whose blueprint was revealed in yesterday’s Independent.[.]
Among those backing the proposals were Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader; Liam Fox, the Conservative defence spokesman; Denis MacShane, the former Europe minister; Tony Lloyd, chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the former Conservative foreign secretary.
Support for Mr Allawi’s plan came as it emerged that Mr Bush is replacing his top two commanders for Iraq. Lt-Gen David Petraeus – an expert in counter-insurgency – will take over from Gen George Casey as coalition commander on the ground in Iraq. US Navy Admiral William Fallon will replace General John Abizaid as chief of US Central Command, in charge of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The choice of Admiral Fallon was unexpected, given that these are both ground conflicts. But it may also reflect the importance of sea-based air power in containing Iran.
Both appointees are understood to be supporters of the “surge” in US forces apparently favoured by Mr Bush, which would send as many as 20,000 troops to Iraq.
Politically, opposition to an increase in US troops in Iraq is widespread.[.]
(emphasis added)
Mr. Bush promised us his decision at mid week. But before we raise applause that adults are talking of a peace plan, Bush may, true to form and from all reports, ignore the reality that Iraq is lost.
Several alarm bells have been sounded over the appointment of Admiral William J. Fallon. In this community our esteemed BooMan and Jeff Huber.
And now the Brits also made note. Troubled times ahead.
Laura Rozen caught this bit of NYT censoring: (via War and Piece)
What to think of a NAVAL officer being appointed to run Central Command, theater of two current ground wars? [..]
money graf:
“A general reorientation of our regional policy toward a confrontation with Iran,” suggests one correspondent. So too another reader noted this excerpt in a version of that NYT article that ran last night but is now apparently no longer there:
Military officers and Pentagon officials said that Admiral Fallon would represent a shift in focus for the Central Command, as he would bring expertise in maritime security operations more than land operations. As the Iraq security operation matures, the focus for Central Command is expected to shift toward countering the threat from Iran.
In that capacity, the military’s role focuses on maintaining regional presence through naval forces and combat aircraft and conducting maritime security operations like interdiction of vessels believed to be carrying banned weapons materials or suspected terrorists, in addition to preparing for combat contingencies.”
(emphasis added)
Laura notes “it’s hard to know why it was taken out.”
Now our esteemed BooMan has been riding the Impeachment horse. Time to open the stables doors. Bush has ousted all those opponents of his Iraq escalation trip, opponents who could stage a coup d’etat or close, an embarrassment as they all resign.
Recall Seymour Hersh?
So much for “I listen to my Generals.” It appears only when they tell him what he wants to hear.
Bush is desperate to pull a ‘win’ from the flames of failure. This man cannot admit to mistakes so he’s going for “one last push for victory before defeat.”
He does not see it that way. Unfortunate he pays no price.
What’s ahead. A two-fer-one:
More fuel on Iraq’s spreading flames
[P]rior to the 2003 invasion, there existed a rough balance of power between Shi’ite and Sunni factions across the region – neither was able to achieve inordinate regionwide power or dominance. The US and Britain took directly on themselves the enormous task and responsibility of maintaining that rough regional balance of power when they crashed into the Hussein regime. They were entirely unprepared to assume that strategic responsibility, however.
At the same time, as that US/British-instigated imbalance of power continues to tip in Iran’s favor, it has acutely disturbed and frightened the oil-rich Sunni Arab regimes who legitimately fear a regional takeover by ascendant Iran.
In 2007 the final consequences of the United States’ failed policies will arrive. Those consequences are extremely unlikely to include anything resembling the “win” still hoped for by the US, Britain and Israel, for the simple reason that all the evidence points to the conclusion that the regional tipping point toward ascendancy by the Shi’ite faction may already have been reached.[.]
If the US and Britain imagine they can play the Sunni-Shi’ite sectarian rivalry card and somehow keep the repercussions contained within the realm of orderliness or “manageable chaos” by means of their naval and other forces, they are every bit as dense now as they were when they went into Iraq in the first place, imagining that that strategy would succeed.[.]
There’s that Saudi ultimatum in Cheney’s pocket so Bush will order an attack on Iran and not because of their nuclear ambitions.
It’ll be to make right the unintended consequences of his misadventure in Iraq; having tipped the balance of power in favor of Iran, a member of what he coined the axis of evil. That’s just too big a mistake for our Sunni friends, Bush’s legacy and how he’ll be viewed.
And what of Allawi’s Blueprint for Peace? The plan will be dismissed as too complex and talking to Iran and Syria is a taboo.