A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
December 06, 2006Iraq Study Group Report threadHere is the full report. I have not had time to read the whole report yet, but I note this from the Executive Summary: Our most important recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly.Posted by Todd Pearson at December 6, 2006 11:49 AM Comments
It is 4th and inches with 30 seconds to go on the other team's 45 and they punted, which we expected, right? Did it really take six years for us to decide that we needed a bolder diplomatic effort with Syria, Iran, and Iraq? Geesh... Posted by: Mathew at December 6, 2006 03:29 PMSome of the conclusions are debatable. Iran and Syria want to destabilize Iraq. These two are trying to destabilize Lebanon. Some of the recommendations are wishful thinking. Bolder diplomatic effort with Iran and Syria? We offered Iran a reactor. We disbanded the primary insurgent group that attacked Iran from Iraq. We have avoided chasing insurgents back into Syria and have held off additional sanctions on Syria despite the numerous terrorist conventions in Damascus and Syrian hit squads. As we speak, Syria and Iran resupply Hizb"Allah. Gates has already retreated a bit from the Baker Report. Movement on the Israeli/Palestinian issue? There is a civil war in Gaza. Iran has called for Israel's destruction. Hamas won't recognize Israel. The Baker Study simply does not have any magic bullets. Without a stake in Iraqi institutions such as Constitutional provisions to provide oil revenue for Iraqis, the government will continue to be hit. Without better safeguards on Iraqi oil, black markets will fund terror. January 1 throws the ball in the Democrat's court. They would prefer to do nothing and continue to blame Republicans. Fortunately, they can’t do that. Russia, China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Belarus, AQ and Hizb”Allah, Chavez, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, and Afghanistan. What will Democrats deal with first?
Posted by: Maxtrue at December 6, 2006 05:46 PM
another element missed in the Baker Study. Posted by: Maxtrue at December 6, 2006 05:51 PMone more news story as a counter weight to the Baker Study Posted by: Maxtrue at December 6, 2006 06:06 PMNo takers Todd or am I scaring them away?....okay here goes...... (Some thoughts provided in ( )s below. I was trying to be a bit humorous. Most recommendations seem to rest on vast sums of money. Given intelligence reform, I doubt the reorganization of so much will help us over the next two years in Iraq. The Study suggests long-term US participation in Iraq, very little in terms of the strategic importance of requiring a stable Iraq and even less of the intractability of certain problems such as the sectarian divide in the Iraq army. It also suggests almost a denial of the intensions of Iran and Syria to destabilize the region, the accelerated momentum for civil war throughout the region fomented by sectarian extremists, and no recommendations to counteract the effects of defeat in Iraq or the gains taken by leaving prematurely. More than once, it speaks about our US forces needing to be ready for global contingencies, but where is that? Darfur, North Korea, the China Sea? And if there are so many hotspots requiring our military readiness, how does the Baker Study address that necessary stress of a very busy military deploying into much of the same situations? If our biggest problem issues from the Middle East, how are we going to exit gracefully? This Study may in fact make Israel more likely to act against declared enemies. My biggest objection is its lack of strategic context and the basis of why we went to Iraq in the first place. Again, why is Iraq important, what are the possible negatives of continuing to make mistakes? Ricks ends his FIASCO with a warning about leaving a brush fire in Iraq burning. This report is somewhat depressing and mute. It does not recommend partition or Constitutional oil rights. It isn’t graceful at all and despite its assertive tones, looks weak. Carter has called Iraq the greatest American blunder. Really?) RECOMMENDATION 40: The United States should not RECOMMENDATION 41: The United States must make it RECOMMENDATION 42: We should seek to complete the RECOMMENDATION 43: Military priorities in Iraq must RECOMMENDATION 44: The most highly qualified U.S. officers and military personnel should be assigned to the RECOMMENDATION 45: The United States should support more and better equipment for the Iraqi Army by encouraging the Iraqi government to accelerate its Foreign Restoring the U.S. Military We recognize that there are other results of the war in Iraq that U.S. military forces, especially our ground forces, have RECOMMENDATION 48: As equipment returns to the
Building on this experience, the training programs should RECOMMENDATION 58: The FBI should expand its investigative and forensic training and facilities within Iraq, to include coverage of terrorism as well as criminal activity. One of the major deficiencies of the Iraqi Police Service is its
Iraq, a country with promising oil potential, could restore Short Term The Iraqi government must improve its intelligence capability, To facilitate enhanced Iraqi intelligence capabilities, the
(These recommendations do suggest the level of the apparent mistakes. Had Republicans exerted greater influence on the President, I do not think some of these recommendations would have had to be made now. I do not think Gates and Bush will adopt much of this, but it serves notice to Iraq that an apparent centrist group of former American officials now formally challenges American resolve. It says we’re not leaving, but we are leaving and it seems a bit confused about the consequences of either. Not that this will have much bearing on the sectarian hostilities in Iraq.) Maxtrue: The reality is that there is a lot to digest and, from what I have seen, most people in the blogosphere (not including you) are reacting today to the commentary rather than the guts of the report itself. Nonetheless, I appreciate your efforts to advance the discussion here. I expect there to be an ongoing/multi-thread debate here. Posted by: Todd Pearson at December 6, 2006 11:42 PMI have not had a chance to look at the report. Probably won't until late next week. So I am holding off until I can read the details. Posted by: Jim M at December 7, 2006 08:31 AMI'm not inclined to bother to read the report. Our options at this point all seem to me to be crappy ones. Even presuming we could pull the fat from the fire, it's already been burnt up real crispy. I sense an inexorable shift in momentum, and there's an atmosphere of political piling on. It seem to me to it's being gleefully covered by the media. The font sizes grow for ever-glibber grim headlines. It's starting to feel to me like an emotional tidal wave of public opinion, and I don't think it can be stopped or its course changed. At this point, the ones who are going to be eagerly reading this report are Iraqis and folks across the middle east. Presumedly there are some remaining hopeful Iraqis that we have on our side in trying to hold together the nascent constitutional government. If these folks are smart, they are preparing themselves for the high likelihood that we aren't going to follow through on various promises that have been made. That's not right, but IMO the handwriting is on the wall. Right now, as we blog from the safety of our desks, various folks with real-world pressing things at stake imminently(like their lives, and the physical and economic safety of their family) are busy furiously shifting their eggs to safer and more realistic baskets, and tucking the remains of big hopes away in a corner box for some other time. The poor bastards. Posted by: bk at December 7, 2006 09:15 AMSadr and the other militias will celebrate in the streets when they read this report. The first part, about problems, went well into talking about the damage done by militias. It was the only part I liked. The second part, what to do, struck me as disturbingly fatalistic. This isn't Vietnam. We have very powerful forces, and haven't yet lost the possibility that a well-thought-out plan can win. > Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the Only half right. The fundamental cause of violence in Iraq is that nobody's stopping violence. The militias aren't being confronted. This isn't Vietnam - moderates don't hate our side and don't want violence. That's being ignored. In fact, if I were writing this report, I'd have just one recommendation: JON'S RECOMMENDATION: Stop making deals with the militias and fight them! We must fight Sadr and other militias on our own initiative, and on our own plan. The Iraqi government can never do that of its own accord, since it depends on militias to not be shot. We have enough troops there to do this right now. We don't have to get every militiaman - just forcing Sadr and his force structure off the streets and into hiding would be a big advance. Are we currently going after Sadr, despite the tale of misery he causes? No! Why not?
Because we haven't been trying to deal with problems of Iraq and the region so far atall. > RECOMMENDATION 13: There must be a renewed and sustained commitment Oh, yes, we'll be able to resolve a 2,000-year-old trouble spot at our convenience to help us in Iraq in the next year or two. Talk about dilution of effort! What a typical committee effort! > However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply That's only true so long as we continue to just kind of respond to certain militias we haven't done deals with yet. > The Iraqi government should accelerate the urgently How is any of this going to stop militias from continuing to control the streets, so long as the government continues to depend on militias to not be shot itself? > RECOMMENDATION 43: Military priorities in Iraq mus I'm pretty tempted to accuse Baker of being a covert militia-lover from this list of priorities. With this list, the militia's grip on power can never fade. In fact, absolutely none of the recommendations I've read so far seem likely to address militias effectively. You'd think we didn't have a huge army there, just from reading the report. Sobering, hardly means a total lack of inspiration. There is a mood here that Brian senses, but I believe events will further motivate “new thinking”. Perhaps Jon and many others are struck by the complete unreality of the recommendations. A kind of rudderless salad bowl. Why were we there? Why is Iraq important? Has Iran already intimidated the region into appeasement? Do we need Iranian help to “solve” Iraq? Will Israel be forced to ignite WW3? Will Palestinians agreed to accept an "Israel" and end their civil war? Will Syria and Iran bring down Lebanon? Will Sunnis unleash more Jihadists in Iraq? It is hard to accept recommendations without a broader calculus. In a strategically coherent plan, Iraq becomes a question of priorities and costs. Media is playing this as another event in the political battle over Iraq. The battle over Iraq in reality is more about the nature and responsibilities of pre-emption and the validity of the clash of civilization dialectic manifest through asymmetrical terrorism. The nexus of this novel historical phase coupled with high tech and WMD thrusts foreign policy in a completely new direction. It will take new means, new alliances, new discourse and new consequences of mistaken tactics. Thus it is hard to accept out of context defeatism in a critical moment like now, nor think for a moment that our adversaries are not prematurely celebrating while others on the front lines contemplate extraordinary measures of self-defense. Yes, more pre-emption or appeasement without criteria. Let us start briefly at the beginning. The Times reported weeks ago about nuclear weapon designs posting up at that Iraqi Document Survey group I linked here many months ago. No Representative worth their paycheck thought Saddam wasn't WMD capable. We know the many caravans into Syria prior to our invasion. We removed Saddam and gave the Iraqi people a chance to choose between partition or unity while we bungled our way into a lawless, undermanned occupation beset by violence rather than a UN-mandated support force and adequate implementation of several of Baker’s recommendations..Mind you, I am not sure how well this could be done by just ourselves and the Brits. Speculating has a limit. We certainly didn't think long term like many of their contradictory comments suggest. The recommendations are often either self-evident (Holy Crap) or wishful thinking (yeah right). Other recommendations reflect a grim defeatism, as though Iraq were not many times more important than Viet Nam, Grenada, Somalia, Bosnia, Serbia or Panama. We acted and removed a WMD-capable fascist Sunni from doing exactly what his personal recordings say he would have done. Prior to our invasion, parts of his nuclear group drove to Syria. Saddam’s intensions were clear as were the contracts with Russian, Chinese and French companies. The odds were always in favor of civil war (see most experts before the war) and our plan B was what for this contingency? There is real doubt there was ever a coherent phase IV (See FIASCO). But I won't pile on. We have a significant fighting force in Iraq. I always thought Iraq was a basing idea on our way to Damascus and Tehran. The smart thing to do would have been to admit the planning problems from the start and move aggressively to field a military force that could hammer militias, police that obeyed the law, counterterrorism operations and infrastructure security that worked. This is arm chairing, but I have always been stunned by our mistaken record given the amounts of money spent coupled with Iraqi oil wealth. The recommendations, as I said before, seem defeatist, wishful, or so obvious it is hard to believe such advise was not part of Cobra II from the start, given the Bush-declared IMPORTANCE of our moving quickly (far faster than against Iran ) to REMOVE SADDAM and then manage Iraq's oil industry while containing sectarian violence. It was the right (but rushed) next move with Saddam, given our military's reluctance to partition Iraq in arming Militias from the start and squeezing the Saddam middle. That would be more of a proxy war. I believe Sadr is an example of why Zinni's plan would have failed. To adopt the reverse and try and create a new Iraq army from scratch without even a coherent plan and resource to do this was bungling at best. This is why Rumsfeld is gone. Disband the army, kick out all Saddam Party card holders from government and fail to protect oil infrastructure were talked about as mistakes for years (even before the fact). And what would our Arab friends do as we crushed the Sunnis, left and just let Iran and Syria fill the vacuum? But onward. We are here. Rove will live to play one more day, I am afraid that if we retreat from Iraq, the Sunnis and the Israelis will regard our alliance as insufficient to provide security. Israel will consider pre-emption and Arabs will support extremists to fight in Iraq. Once again the world seems too paralyzed to confront genocide, terrorism, anti Semitism, proliferation and anti-liberal extremism. Events will continue to morph into increasingly threatening and complex stalemates. The Iraq Study, from my initial looks seems disconnected from a dialogue about national security as it relates to Iraq. While it makes sense to reconfigure as civil war erupts, one cannot inspire Americans to sacrifice and endure when there is little conversation about the goals and mission behind today’s use of military force. It sets high bars and in a moment suggests dangerous options. The recommendations sets forth little underlying criteria for deciding when we SHOULD leave, nor shows our disposition and deployment in Iraq degrades our readiness (presumably with Iran next door and continued deployment in the Gulf.). While I do not echo the NY Post’s front page, I have grown weary of the cycle of defeatism and failures. They have little to do with the real task at hand. Remember, The Study does not recommend more troops, partition, Constitutional oil rights, defeating militias, interdicting weapons from Syria and Iran. Very strange, yet predictable I suppose. I hope Gates proves to be more independent of this “group think”. The way forward? To where? And I'm not sure the DoD is quite comfortable with these recommendations as the best way forward. Posted by: Maxtrue at December 7, 2006 06:55 PMBeyond the human cost, what should America consider as the best options to secure a world free of terrorists/extremists with WMD or WMC? Does this rational self-interest mean inevitable conflict with regimes seeking WMD that support the Islamic terror network? Should we do this by pre-empting their means of production and material transfers? What is that point where we COULD use force? When is diplomacy exhausted? Never?. And how should we behave in order to prevent Iran or Syria (see North Korea) from acquiring nuclear weapons and their delivery systems including but not limited to cruise missiles, air and surface launched missiles, drones, sub launched missiles, aircraft, shells, SF teams, and delivery through several terrorist groups? Do we doubt the real Iranian aim in enriching fuel is to create a credible nuclear threat to deter any serious Western retaliation for acts of terrorism and aggression that Iran undertakes against the United States and its allies. Then there is the matter of supplying proxies with delivery systems. Wasn’t our removing a WMD-capable brutal despot who was considering more and supplying some assistance to terrorists, consistent with a general criteria for pre-emption? Iraq is no longer a WMD threat. Picture Bob Newhart as Iraq Study Spokesperson reading these recommendations out loud before a session of Congress.
I liked the "Secret Plan to End the War" better. I want "Peace with Honor" in Iraq. Posted by: C3 at December 8, 2006 05:29 PMHow about "stability with resolve"? Times quotes military on Study Posted by: Maxtrue at December 8, 2006 07:47 PMYes, Peace with Honor.....more than two million dead in the slaughter that followed. Now there was a graceful exist. Yes, we need more Republican realists and Democratic "historians" like Carter to lead us to a peaceful land based on facts, ground realities and objective threat assessments.. Baker? Didn’t he enable Saddam in the first place. Didn’t Carter spawn Osama? What about realists "ending the war on terror" like Reagan "ended the Cold War"? Jeanne K died today. Seems that warrior would not have capitulated. If memory serves me correctly, Reagan moved mobile missiles into Europe while the anti-war wing burned him in effigy. If this is a centrist, bi-partisan Study, then we're in big trouble. Given the Study's average membership age, yesterday's moderates and realists are not today's centrists. Negotiate with Iran? Didn’t Baker give them dud missiles once to get back hostages? I do not believe the center wants a replay of peace with honor. Unfortunately many wouldn’t mind "no peace with dishonor". Yes, there will no peace and there will be little honor if we walk, run. skip and jump. I don’t know who I am angrier at: the idiots who got us here, or the ones who think we can just walk away. Posted by: Maxtrue at December 8, 2006 10:11 PM |
Archives
February 2008
January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Three Quotes
The Choice, Based on Iraq Policy Even More Of A Surprise Castro Bows Out Kosovo Declares Independence Will Obama Take McCain's Funding Dare? Global Poverty Act Preservation Friday Band Taking on Obama Electoral Results Came Out As Expected?!?
|
