The new new U.S. strategy in Iraq: confusion
A front-page story by Ann Tyson in yesterday's Washington Post purported to shed new light on a brand-new strategy—call it "Plan B"—that the U.S. military and diplomatic team in Baghdad is putting together with the help of think-tank experts: Top U.S. commanders and diplomats in Iraq are completing a far-reaching campaign plan for a new ...
A front-page story by Ann Tyson in yesterday's Washington Post purported to shed new light on a brand-new strategy—call it "Plan B"—that the U.S. military and diplomatic team in Baghdad is putting together with the help of think-tank experts:
A front-page story by Ann Tyson in yesterday's Washington Post purported to shed new light on a brand-new strategy—call it "Plan B"—that the U.S. military and diplomatic team in Baghdad is putting together with the help of think-tank experts:
Top U.S. commanders and diplomats in Iraq are completing a far-reaching campaign plan for a new U.S. strategy, laying out military and political goals and endorsing the selective removal of hardened sectarian actors from Iraq's security forces and government.
The classified plan, scheduled to be finished by May 31, is a joint effort between Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior American general in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.
But wait a minute … didn't David Ignatius say the opposite in Tuesday's column for the same newspaper?
President Bush and his senior military and foreign policy advisers are beginning to discuss a "post-surge" strategy for Iraq that they hope could gain bipartisan political support. The new policy would focus on training and advising Iraqi troops rather than the broader goal of achieving a political reconciliation in Iraq, which senior officials recognize may be unachievable within the time available.
As FP contributor Pat Lang observes, the stories appear to be "mutually exclusive." Note that the sourcing is different for each. Lang speculates that either there's a policy fight being waged in the media, or that the "incoherence of substance and unreality of many of the arguments and positions … indicate a disintegration of thought" within the foreign-policy apparatus.
I haven't seen the plans in question, so I can't say for certain if they are, in fact, incoherent. But I lean toward Lang's first theory—that there's a heck of an argument going on right now within the military and the U.S. administration, and the crux of it is whether or not reconciliation is possible in Iraq. So is it? Email us with your thoughts.
More from Foreign Policy

Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.

The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.

Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.

How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.