Command and Control
The central theory of agency, that is, that there is the non-trivial possibility of controlling events in Iraq, and therefore of acting "responsibly", is at the heart of the Eaton plan, now the Iraq Plank of 40 House and 4 Senate campaigns. Politically, in the domestic calculus of American primary and general election races, the "responsible" message distinguishes the campaign from competitors who message "out now and damn the consequences", as it promises to "manage, not damn" the consequences that matter. It similarly distinguishes these campaigns from competitors who message "stay the course" by the promise of "withdrawal", albeit "responsibly".
MB's view is that its smart to campaign with a shared message. I'm doubtful, as the DCCC's "Nursing Dems" and "Fighting Dems" of the last two cycles didn't pay off as anticipated, and it isn't what we learned from the special elections -- the voters don't buy message that their vote will bring about glamorous new programs in a congress controlled by Republicans and "moderate" Democrats, but they do buy the message that their vote can stop abusive existing programs, or at least that "NO" is unambiguously uttered.
Whether or not it is smart, the authors of the "responsible plan" should have public comment up now on the conflict initiated by Nouri al-Maliki, in particular, they should have selected one of five or more theories:
[1] "Iran is liquidating its no longer useful proxies" theory (which would fit this general line of speculation about Iran's doubts about Sadr and preference for the simultaneously-US backed ISCI) to the generally most prevalent (in the Iraqi and Arab, not just Western, media) [2] "Maliki and ISCI are liquidating their more popular rivals ahead of the provincial elections" theory; the optimistic [3] "Sadr has lost power and now's the time to take him out" theory (thus far not borne out by the course of the fighting, but who knows - it's early, or it could be a miscalculation); [4] Maliki's own "it's time to establish state sovereignty over a 'lost' province" theory (which Bush, of course, has embraced, and is supported by the reporting that the Iraqi Army began its preparations for the attack months ago; but then why isn't he taking on the other militias and warlords? and why would he start now, and in Basra?); and [5] Reidar Visser's "Maliki is trying to build a power base in the Iraqi Army" theory. [note: numbers added to make Kevin Drum happy.]
Of course there is a 6th, or a 7th, or an 8th, there has to be, consistent with the core theory of US agency, and therefore command and control, hence the "responsible" element of the "responsible plan". The change of command at CENTCOM is causal or the November (US) and not the October (Iraq) election is causal or in spite of their public silence, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, together with Dick Cheney, decided to make a bonfire out of the Surge's vanities.
The authors of "the responsible plan", and the users of "the responsible plan", simply have to explain Nouri al-Maliki's offensive in Basara, and the Madhi Army's counter-offensive in Baghdad and Khadhimiyah, and their explaination has to place them at the locus of control, it has to put their, perhaps numb hands, on the levers of cause and effect.
As a parlor game, the run rate for right or wrong is approximately a trillion USD per congressional campaign, and since the surprise no-quarter offensive began in Basara on Saturday, 75 people have been killed and 498 wounded in fighting in the Sadr City district of Baghdad, another 17 have been killed in the Khadhimiyah district of Baghdad, the Green Zone is under heavier fire than usual, and at least 23 people have been killed in Basara, where the militias identified as "the Iraqi Army" and "the Iraqi Police" have been unable to penetrate or overrun the militias identified as "something else".
We had this moment five years ago, when the "liberal hawks" joined the overtly insane and cheerlead George Bush's triumphal, flower petal strewn entry into a joyous Baghdad. Rise, Repeat.
