So starting today the pundits turn to reading and digesting the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report. According to the Post, Congress is eager to dig into it while the White House is actively distancing itself from the document. The clearest picture of where we are, however, is provided by this single fact: all the report really does is say, in a quasi-official forum, that Iraq is a disaster and that we have little choice but to start pulling our troops out of the country. In other words, we're so far gone that it's a big deal that anything beside the most extreme form of collective denial is now on the table in Washington, DC. -- Josh Marshall discuss...
The executive summary from the WSJ. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ-iraq_study_group.pdf
Bush pleads for political truce on Iraq US President George W. Bush vowed to act in a "timely fashion" on a heavyweight commission's blunt call to change course in Iraq and pleaded for a political truce over the unpopular war. "This report gives a very tough assessment of the situation in Iraq," Bush said as he met with the members of the congressionally created bipartisan Iraq Study Group and received their 79 non-binding recommendations. "The country, in my judgment, is tired of pure political bickering that happens in Washington, and they understand that on this important issue of war and peace, it is best for our country to work together," he said. The 160-page report bluntly declared that Bush's policy "is not working," that the situation in Iraq is "grave and deteriorating," that the United States cannot afford its current "open-ended" commitment, and urged the withdrawal of most US combat forces by early 2008. "No one can guarantee that any course of action in Iraq at this point will stop sectarian warfare, growing violence, or a slide toward chaos," said the panel's leaders, power-player and Bush family friend James Baker and ex-lawmaker Lee Hamilton. "US foreign policy is doomed to failure, as is any course of action in Iraq, if it is not supported by a broad, sustained consensus," wrote Baker and Hamilton. "Success depends on the unity of the American people in a time of political polarization." The report called for US outreach to Iran and Syria -- a deeply unpopular option at the White House -- a renewed push behind the Arab-Israeli peace process, and said Washington should warn Baghdad it will draw down its forces whether or not the war-torn country's government makes significant progress. At the same time, it strongly cautioned against an immediate or hasty drawdown of US forces and warned that sending more US troops would be pointless in "the absence of national reconciliation" in Iraq. "It is a report that brings some really very interesting proposals, and we will take every proposal seriously and we will act in a timely fashion," the US president promised. "This report will give us all an opportunity to find common ground, for the good of the country -- not for the good of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, but for the good of the country," he said. "I urge the members of Congress to take this report seriously. While they won't agree with every proposal -- and we probably won't agree with every proposal -- it, nevertheless, is an opportunity to come together and to work together on this important issue," said Bush. "I understand how difficult that is," said Bush, who in 2002, 2004 and 2006 elections hammered opposition Democrats as dangerously unserious about US national security in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Panel members echoed Bush's call to set aside politics, with Republican former senator Alan Simpson saying "we're not here to vex and embarrass the administration" and Vernon Jordan, a close friend to Democratic former president Bill Clinton, saying "we checked our partisanship at the door." http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061206/pl_afp/usiraqreportbush_061206170255
There's no political bickering on the important issue of war and peace. Everyone not named McCain and W understands that Bush's Folly is a lost cause. The arguments are around the margins... how and when to pull out. Also, this comment by W has zero credibility after they rammed through the vote prior to the 2002 elections, lied about the WMDs for domestic political advantage, and beat anyone who questioned any decision or action by the administration over the head with the "important issue of war and peace."
Poor W refused to follow the script for modern combat: Go in...kick butt...declare victory...get out. Clinton understood this. Bush I understood this. You simply cannot win a protracted conflict when you are an intervening nation.
Iraq isn't a lost cause. This report doesn't say that, only that current policies need to adapt to the current conditions.
Haven't people from both sides of the aisle been calling for that for two years now? In other words the ISG is calling for cutting and running?
I don’t think the intention was ever to get out. I think he wanted to stay in one form or another and control the region. I think that’s why he went in essentially alone. To the victor go the spoils, and I think he wanted to establish and maintain a strong presence there without having to negotiate with the UN or a bunch of coalition members.
The Iraq Study Group report is 125 pages long and contains 79 recommendations. Some key points: RECOMMENDATION 22: The President should state that the United States does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. If the Iraqi government were to request a temporary base or bases, then the U.S. government could consider that request as it would in the case of any other government. RECOMMENDATION 35: The United States must make active efforts to engage all parties in Iraq, with the exception of al Qaeda. The United States must find a way to talk to Grand Ayatollah Sistani, Moqtada al-Sadr, and militia and insurgent leaders. RECOMMENDATION 40: The United States should not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq. RECOMMENDATION 41: The United States must make it clear to the Iraqi government that the United States could carry out its plans, including planned redeployments, even if Iraq does not implement its planned changes. America’s other security needs and the future of our military cannot be made hostage to the actions or inactions of the Iraqi government. http://thinkprogress.org/
Clinton worked *around* the UN when it became clear he couldn't get his way within it. But then....he was a diplomat - which is bush's biggest failing. "Control" has been exercised in many forms throughout recent history. Rarely has being a direct player in the conflict for an extended time been a successful tact. Not for a nation thousands of miles away. Not when you're perceived as being the only 'superpower.' I think you have to say...regardless of whether you accept any justification for the conflict...that the handling of it has been a complete disaster. There is no way this is what they wanted.
Please provide your definition of success in Iraq what the U.S. would have to do differently to achieve it.
The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict. There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment must include direct talks with, by, and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israel’s right to exist), and particularly Syria—which is the principal transit point for shipments of weapons to Hezbollah, and which supports radical Palestinian groups. The United States does its ally Israel no favors in avoiding direct involvement to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. For several reasons, we should act boldly: • There is no military solution to this conflict. • The vast majority of the Israeli body politic is tired of being nation perpetually at war. • No American administration—Democratic or Republican— will ever abandon Israel. • Political engagement and dialogue are essential in the Arab- Israeli dispute because it is an axiom that when the political process breaks down there will be violence on the ground. • The only basis on which peace can be achieved is that forth in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 in the principle of “land for peace.” • The only lasting and secure peace will be a negotiated peace such as Israel has achieved with Egypt and Jordan. This effort would strongly support moderate Arab governments in the region, especially the democratically elected government of Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas.
How so? I don't think that's true at all. In fact I'm one of the last posters left who still support the intervention. I have said mistakes have been made (disbanding the Iraqi army looms pretty large these days) but that isn't a change at all. Why are you attempting to link me to the 'cut and run' debate? I haven't ever said the intervention was being run properly. I think there are too many permutations to list out at this point. Many outcomes would be a success. A failed state ala Somalia is really the only outcome that would definitively be a failure.
According to the president, nothing less than victory (whatever that is) would be considered a failure. I'd be interested in what you would consider success. And I wasn't linking you with the cut and run debate. Just making an observation that what the ISG is suggesting is similar to what people have been calling for for several years now and they were all labeled "Cut and Runners" or Osama appeasers. Do we now call the ISG cut and runners?
Well that didn't take long... White House rules out one-on-one talks with Iran WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Wednesday said it has ruled out one-on-one talks with Iran about Iraq unless Tehran suspends nuclear activities, after the Iraq Study Group recommended more engagement with the Islamic republic. The report by the bipartisan panel recommended that the White House overcome its resistance to dealing directly with Iran and Syria. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061206/pl_nm/iraq_group_iran_dc
Well, like I said there are many permutations that I would consider a success such as a federated state of Iraq, a partitioned Iraq with three autonomous zones, three new countries, a unified Iraq - all of those are still in possible. Each would have advantages and disadvantages but my point is that it is premature to make a determination that this is a 'lost cause.' I think 'lost cause' is as ambiguous and useless as your Bush quote about 'victory.' If you were a cut and run caller then maybe so?
