“Deteriorating And Grave”
For all of the hooplah around the release of the Iraq Study Group’s report, it’s a document that still looks more backward than forward.
The good news is that it’s retrospective sum-up of the war is a forthright and long-delayed indictment of both the military and foreign policy of the Bush administration. As the Washington Post notes, “the report is replete with damning details about the administration’s incompetence in Iraq:”
It notes, for instance, that only six people in the 1,000-person U.S. embassy in Baghdad can speak Arabic fluently, and recounts how the military counted 93 acts of violence in one day in July when the group’s own examination of the numbers found 1,100 acts of violence. “Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes discrepancy with policy goals,” the report says.
Ok, just a bit understated. But on the right track. It can only further the national conversation to have a report from this totally establishment crew openly declare that Iraqi policy is a disaster. A disaster, by the way, whose price tag may eventually reach $2 trillion, according to the report.
The bad news is that in spite of listing 79 recommendations, the prescriptive part of the report is rife with dangerous ambiguities and mistaken assumptions. It’s a pity that the clear-eyed realism that permeates the analytical portion of the study doesn’t carry over to it to-do list.
Yes, it’s positive that the ISG calls for talks with Syria and Iran and meaningful, regional diplomatic initiative by the end of this year. I can’t see Bush carrying this out, but the recommendation is absolutely sound.
The rest of the prescriptive has holes in it big enough to drive an army through. The fundamental flaw is the continuing fiction that more U.S. training of military and security forces can have any meaningful effect.
Poppycock.
The solutions to the war in Iraq are strictly political not technical/military. It’s not a question of how effectively the Iraqi forces fight, but rather what is it exactly that they are willing to fight and die for? The conflict in Iraq is hardly rooted in inadequately trained armed forces unable to quash simmering disorder. Instead, Iraq is torn by a civil war, a bloody and barbaric fight for ethnic and economic power in which the Iraqi armed forces and police are partisan — not neutral– actors.
The report’s suggestion that we increase the number of U.S. troops embedded inside the Iraqi Army from 3,000 to 20,000 is, frankly, ridiculous. Ridiculous because there is NO POSSIBLE MILITARY solution to “cleaning up the militias.” Muqtada Al-Sadr’s private Shia army alone has an estimated 60,000 armed fighters and more than two million followers.
What’s unsettling about the report is that, in the end, it calls for a withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops by roughly 18 months from now, but would allow for as many 70,000 other U.S. soldiers to remain in Iraq — almost indefinitely– with the bogus mission of “training.”
I was able, unfortunately, to catch incoming Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the car radio speaking just as the report was unveiled. Unless I heard him wrong (I didn’t) he offered pretty much a blanket endorsement of the ISG report saying “the ball was not in the administration’s court” and that the new Democratic majority would be “carefully watching.”
Gag me with a spoon. What’s the point, I might ask, of even having a Democratic Party if — in the face of the most tragic foreign policy decision of our times– they have nothing to offer beyond the suggestions of Jim Baker?
I don’t know any better than you do how Bush will ultimately respond to the report. I have to suppose that circumstance are such that he cannot ignore it. By Xmas I think it likely he will announce some grand new initiative that will at least look like he has taken the study seriously and has, indeed, embarked on a new course.
Bush might be able to very well create the impression that some sort of drawdown has been commenced. If he succeeds (and I don’t know that he will), I suspect a lot of air would escape from the anti-Iraq war balloon.
Remember, that Richard M. Nixon was re-elected in 1972, after the upheaval against the war in Vietnam has reached its historic peak. But Nixon had already started pulling back on the draft, reversed escalation and promised a non-existent secret plan to end a war that, in the public mind, was sort of ending anway (even though it roared on another three years).
It’s a good lesson for Democrats who can’t come up with anything different to say than Baker and Hamilton.
December 6th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
I think the ISG is kabuki, putting a brave face on the big fadeout from Iraq.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
Great post, Marc.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
“The conflict in Iraq is hardly rooted in inadequately trained armed forces unable to quash simmering disorder.”
As a veteran of several highly successful quashings of worse-than-simmering disorder, Saddam Hussein would beg to differ, I’m sure. However, Saddam had the advantages of One Big Carrot (a steady flow of oil-derived wealth to dispense) and One Big Stick (a unified army, and a bully-boy army-within-an-army, the Republican Guard.) He thus made politics a non-issue. Putting that Humpty Dumpty (with some Saddam replacement more congenial to U.S. interests and acceptable to regional actors) back together again is vanishingly unlikely at this point, unless the American people, either hoodwinked or fatalistic, would accept an Iraqi leader who would be about as ruthless as Saddam was.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
I think your critique is dead on, Marc. Just to add a few thoughts:
1. As discussed at the end of the previous thread, the most important part of the report might be its insistence that the Israel/Palestine conflict be resolved as key to Middle East peace, including implementation of UN resolutions 242 and 338 which call for Israel to withdraw entirely to its pre-1967 borders. Those are two UN resolutions that only explicitly pro-Palestinian advocates have dared to mention during the past several decades, for the most part at least.
2. The US does not actually have the ability to implement any of the recommendations for actions to be taken within Iraq itself. These include the military suggestions, as Marc indicates, as well as the recommendations concerning civilian matters such as the court system. I repeat, the US cannot carry out these recommendations and will not because to do so would mean getting out of the Green Zone and acting in the population at large.
3. The report is essentially silent on what it would take for the three main factions in the country to actually want to stop fighting each other, as well as what it would take for the Kurds to want to be part of a united Iraqi federation. It just says they should stop doing so.
In essence, most of the recommendations are platitudes that cannot be carried out, at least not by the United States.
Finally, there is no basis whatsoever given for the early 2008 estimate for troop withdrawal. So this again is a political statement of a wish, rather than an assessment of how long it will take to do the job.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
Good news for Michael Balter here, though — because Iraq’s army is such a laughingstock, there’s virtually no danger of a military coup in Iraq. Nothing is worse than military coups. Not even civil wars killing millions of people.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
“Bush might be able to very well create the impression that some sort of drawdown has been commenced. If he succeeds (and I don’t know that he will), I suspect a lot of air would escape from the anti-Iraq war balloon.”
I think a lot depends on whether the rate of US military casualties begins to fall, which seems unlikely to me if the recommendations about embedding are actually carried out. Some of the most hair raising stories about recent combat in Iraq concern sorties where the Iraqis pretty much flaked out, leaving the Americans in deep doo doo. This in fact is the problem with gradual withdrawal. Either US troops are out there fighting or helping Iraqis fight, or they are not. If they are not, then they aren’t really doing anything, since we already know that the training of Iraqi troops does not in and of itself lead to anything serious–for the reasons Marc outlines above.
The other aspect is the general passivity of antiwar leaders as well as antiwar Democrats in Congress. They have been awaiting the Baker report desperately as a way out of their own contradictions, opposing the war but unwilling to make the sacrifices required of a real antiwar movement or a real antiwar push in Congress. See my earlier comments on this.
December 7th, 2006 at 12:02 am
See also Michael Gordon’s article in the NYT today, “Will It Work on the Battlefield,” which points out that the Baker report’s military recommendations go counter to most of the advice it received from senior military advisors and are unlikely to work. So, indeed, exactly what are we being handed here, other than a political document designed to buy more time for Republicans and Democrats alike?
Watch closely to see what happens to those recommendations about Israel and Palestine.
December 7th, 2006 at 12:33 am
“Some of the most hair raising stories about recent combat in Iraq concern sorties where the Iraqis pretty much flaked out, leaving the Americans in deep doo doo.”
“Flaking out” might be the worst of the worries. In one recent report, one of the supposedly more promising Iraqi units was described as a source of “friendly fire”. How long before we see the term “fragging” in print again?
December 7th, 2006 at 12:37 am
I also recommend this story in the Washington Post today giving Iraqi commentary on the report and how likely its recommendations are to work–not likely, it seems.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/06/AR2006120602235.html
And finally, 29 US soldiers have died already in December, 10 just yesterday.
December 7th, 2006 at 12:47 am
Unless Marc objects, I am going to inaugurate a new feature on this blog. Every day that I have access to a computer, which is usually, I will post the names of the dead as listed in the NYT to add some context to our discussions of Iraq. Here is today’s installment:
Names of the Dead
The Department of Defense has identified 2,895 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:
ANDERSON, Christopher A., 24, Corpsman, Navy; Longmont, Colo.; assigned to Second Marine Division.
ECHOLS, Thomas P., 20, Lance Cpl., Marines; Shepherdsville, Ky.; Second Marine Division.
ENGLISH, Shawn L., 35, Capt., Army; Westerville, Ohio; First Engineer Brigade.
FISCUS, Keith E., 26, Sgt., Army; Townsend, Del.; 25th Infantry Division.
McCLOUD, Joseph T., 39, Maj., Marines; Grosse Pointe Park, Mich.; Third Marine Division.
McGINNIS, Ross A., 19, Pfc., Army; Knox, Pa.; First Infantry Division.
STICKLEN, Joshua C., 24, Cpl., Marines; Virginia Beach; Third Marine Division.
TURCOTTE, Nicholas D., 23, Pfc., Army; Maple Grove, Minn.; 135th Infantry.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:41 am
More on daily life in Iraq:
The Society of Archivists is publishing the diary of Saad Eskander, Director of the National
Archives and Library:
http://tinyurl.com/yyqf49
December 7th, 2006 at 6:20 am
This would be a perfect time for the Democrats to take leadership on the Israel issue.
All courses that do not include increasing U.S. legitimacy as a peace broker between Israel and the Palestinians are unlikely to lead to lasting improvement in Iraq and the region.
That’s because the U.S. has squandered almost all of the diplomatic, military and economic leverage it has in the region, with the sole exception of leverage against Israel.
Israel is the only country in the region that the U.S. has a reasonable chance of influencing through diplomacy and economic leverage. By pressuring Israel, the U.S. can compel — sans a bombing campaign — a withdrawal from the occupied territories, a logical precondition for serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians and the regional governments–virtually all–who support their resistance to occupation.
Such a withdrawal would be a dramatic, effective step empowering Muslim moderates in the region, the only people who offer any lasting hope of promoting long-term stability.
It is virtually the only hope the U.S. has in regaining real support from leaders in the region.
Israel’s occupation of Palestine is a magazine of silver bullets in the gun of every militant Arab demagogue on the planet. Unless and until we disarm these militants by ending the occupation, the U.S. will be absurdly powerless in a region it has spent so much to dominate militarily.
December 7th, 2006 at 6:40 am
So there’s actually less good news than reported. I didn’t detect a solution though? What IS the solution? Because we know the pols don’t have it at this point.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:29 am
The Republicans will solve Israel/Palestine before Democrats, for reasons that can easily be deduced.
That being said, there’s not even a dime’s worth of diffrenece.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:34 am
“a withdrawal from the occupied territories, a logical precondition for serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians and the regional governments–virtually all–who support their resistance to occupation.”
Why not ask the Palestinians to provide the peace first, as a ‘logical precondition’ for Israeli withdrawal? In fact, I wouldn’t insist on this precondition but consider it far more defensible than forcing a complete Israeli withdrawal prior to peace talks — that’s like assisted suicide. The problem in reconstituting a peace summit now is that no-one has both the leverage and will to make anything stick. The general turmoil in the region, pre-dating but magnified exponentially by the Iraq war, certainly doesn’t help. The U.S. has far less leverage than it did in the past, in part (as you mention) because of Iraq and this administration’s scorn for Mideast (or any) diplomacy . The region’s leaders are less powerful and less stable than they were at the time of the Madrid conference. Israel and the Palestinians have bloodied each other so much in the last 10 years that overcoming their mutual distrust and disdain is now a gargantuan task. The Palestinian Authority is in disarray (in part due to Sharon’s and Bush’s policies). Hamas is still committed to Israel’s destruction; it may be willing to sign or enforce a kind of truce but certainly would be opposed to anything more comprehensive. How do you hammer out a difficult compromise under these conditions? While I think the U.S. has to re-engage diplomatically in the Mideast (which will sometimes entail putting pressure on Israel) we shouldn’t kid ourselves about immediate results. It’s going to take a while before the U.S. has built up sufficient credit to make some kind of successful peace summit plausible. If the goal is to simply re-start a process which will now be more arduous than ever, then a conference can make some sense. Even something as modest as that would be an achievement.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Our strategic interests are best served by an immediate withdrawal into the Kurdish areas of Iraq.
Let the bloody idiots fight this civil war to its bloody conclusion and by all means, let’s encourage Iranian intervention. And let’s arm the Sunni governments who would like to fight against said Iranian intervention. Embroiling the terrorists and their supporters in a bloody ME 30 Years War is ALL to our benefit. All of the oil profits currently spilling into the ME will be burned up in the resultant conflagaration and won’t be funneled to Western-based terrorist cells.
The Jihadists will have a field day in their own backyards. And we protect the only people who display the least bit of civilization in the Middle East without really exerting ourselves. Plus bases in Kurdistan put us in primo positiion for striking as necessary any party that becomes too powerful during our newly engineered civil war.
The fact is that we will lose this war because there isn’t anything to win with engagement. A people who haven’t even developed the basic tenets of the rule of law will hardly achieve democracy. A people who are still fighting a 600 year grudge match about religious succession will hardly achieve democracy. And really — at the end of the day, who cares?
Withdraw into Kurdistan and we haven’t technically lost. Encourage the bloodbath and distract the terrorists. And for everyone’s sake here in the West — funnel the billions of dollars into energy independence. And let the morons rot without money, without infrastructure … and with no escape. That is the path to full victory.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Vivien, I’ve looked carefully through the recommendations of the Baker report and they don’t seem to have taken up any of your suggestions. That’s a pity given the careful thought and consideration you have obviously given to the Middle East crisis. Perhaps you could turn your formidable powers of analysis on issues closer to home such as energy conservation, poverty, or rehousing the victims of Katrina.
December 7th, 2006 at 10:02 am
PS–reg, where are you when we really need you?
December 7th, 2006 at 10:09 am
Michael B. — it’s kind of funny that I was discussing this with some members of AIPAC two days ago and there seemed to be a lot of head-bobbing then. I’m always pleasantly surprised by how easy it is to spread dissent in the modern world. A couple of conversations, a lightbulb turning on and from the comfort of your own cocktail party, you can help effect change.
I’m not suprised that none of what I suggested is in the Baker report. I would expect nothing less from an elite that embroiled us in this stupid, illegal war in the first place on the most slender of pretexts.
Does anyone here actually expect CHANGE and efficiency from the same type of people who have already wasted the lives of our GIs and 1/2 trillion dollars?
Yeah, didn’t think so.
PS–
I am doing a lot on the other three issues. My extended family has helped employ 3 Katrina victims and helped them obtain apartments in the Midwest. I’m underwrote part of the initial support expense.
I’ve subscribed to THE COMPACT in order to lower my ecological footprint.
And guess what — I don’t drive at all. So my gas consumption has gone from 60 gallons a month to zero. Donated my car to charity, too.
You schmarmy pseudo-intellectual! Enjoy.
December 7th, 2006 at 10:23 am
“PS–reg, where are you when we really need you?”
We’re on our own now, Michael; it’s a brave new world.
December 7th, 2006 at 10:33 am
For Vivien and other mall-rat warhawks,
….so that we are not seen to be negotiating from a position of blatant weakness.
What gestures could we make to keep that from being seen?
How can we even fool ourselves that we aren’t negotiating from a position of blatant weakness?
If we want a strong negotiating position we need a draft, and we need high taxes to pay for what we do, and we need a solid national commitment for victory.
We need a lot of 18-year-olds who understand that the world needs them to be in iraq, and that filling that need is worth putting their lives on hold for the duration. They can go to college later.
We need a lot of old people who understand that their medical care isn’t really important compared to winning in iraq. They need to understand that their sacrifice, living on dog food and dying early for lack of medical care, is worth it because future generations need us to win in iraq.
We need a whole lot of stockbrokers and insurance salesmen and telemarketers and real estate professionals and such to go do something useful for the war effort. America doesn’t have time for them now. They can work in factories or recycling or do logistics or whatever they’re good for, for the duration.
We need americans generally to accept a third-world lifestyle until the crisis is over. We use far too much electricity. We heat our buildings far too hot. Wear sweaters, stop eating meat, sacrfifice for the war effort.
We need rich americans to understand that their money must be requisitioned for the war. They can get compensation after the crisis is over and the terrorists have lost.
We need a national commitment that if we continue to lose, we will nuke as much of the world as it takes to turn the war around. Iraq is an existential threat to us and unless we win, we’re doomed. Once the whole world understands that we passionately believe this, they’ll understand why we have to do whatever it takes to win. No sacrifice too large. If we lose half our population but we win, that’s better than losing everybody.
At that point we will have an extremely strong bargaining position. In fact the rest of the world will be scared shitless and they’ll pretty much agree to all our terms.
But it isn’t enough to talk about it. We have to actually do it. We have to persuade the US public that we’ll all die unless we win in iraq, we have to persuade the old people to die and the young people to leave their raves and be soldiers for the duration, we have to persuade the rich to give up their money and the middle class to give up their standard of living. We have to put everybody to work.
Until the voters are convinced to make whatever sacrifice it takes, why would the rest of the world believe we’re ready to back up our hollow words?
Quick, somebody make an argument why iraq is worth it.
Posted by: J Thomas at December 7, 2006 12:23 PM | Permalink to this comment
December 7th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Sorry Vivien that should read “For mall-rat warhawks”
December 7th, 2006 at 10:47 am
That list of names is a fine addition, but you should include a daily list of about a hundred Muhammad Does.
The report does serve to remind us all of the incredible bankrupcy of the current Republican party. They way they continually LIED about the reality of Iraq is an unbelievably shameful part of this story, and proves they are not to be trusted on serious matters. At best, Republicans can argue that their rosy lies were designed to promote support for continuing the Iraq involvement – that the same lies protected their political fortunes is just a happy coincidence. Luckily, the American people finally saw through the lies. Hopefully they will not soon forget that the Republican party believes that lying to the American people is an acceptable way to promote policy and their own fortunes. (Yeah, where is Reg? When it comes to anti-Republican diatribes, he’s the undisputed champion. I feel like a cheap imposter here.)
December 7th, 2006 at 10:52 am
Mavis, you are right of course. But every time researchers try to tell us how many Iraqis have really died nobody wants to believe it.
December 7th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Umm … neodude … I’m not sure what you’re reading but I’m SOOOO not a war-hawk … At least from the perspective of involving American soldiers.
I firmly advocate immediate withdrawal into what should be Kurdistan.
I firmly advocate as much non-intervention on our parts as possible during the ensuing conflagaration. Well, ok, I say encourage Arab-on-Arab violence but leave us out of it.
I couldn’t care less about Iraq. I do care about leaving the Kurds hanging like we did our Vietnamese allies. So withdraw and defend Kurdistan and let the others kill themselves as long as they want. It’s all to our benefit.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:03 am
Michael B. –
I’m not sure that people don’t believe the numbers as much as we don’t care. Yes, it’s callous but true.
Personally I’m much more offended that we’ve wasted +2000 American soldiers’ lives and 1/2 trillion dollars.
I’m much more concerned that Congress rubberstamped this chickenshit war against a two-bit power without a single thought.
I’m much more angry about the Democratic party taking advantage of anti-war sentiment to win Congress and yet, plan to do nothing to end the war.
All of Iraq could fall off the planet as far as I’m concerned. It’s the disturbing behavior internal to the United States that keeps me up at night.
December 7th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
“I say encourage Arab-on-Arab violence but leave us out of it.”
I just want to say on record that Vivien is expressing a thoroughly disgusting viewpoint that is beneath all our regular commenters on the right or left.
December 7th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Vivien -
Your confidence in the cleansing and beneficial outcome of an intramural Muslim conflagration is reminiscent of the neocon-fidence so pervasive before the war, the certainty that we could bank on a happy outcome to large-scale violence and disruption. I can understand the nihilism at this point but you ought to lose the bluster.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Vivien:
“let the others kill themselves as long as they want. It’s all to our benefit.”
This really depends on who the “we” in “our” benefit refers to, doesn’t it?
December 7th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
The tone of most posts here is “this is the right way to go…not the way recommended by ISG….” This is fine. However, the question ISG has put on the table is political: “will you accept this comprehensive plan, in its entirety, if everyone else does?” For the “left,” that might come down to whether it is acceptable to leave 60,000 or whatever troops in some capacity in Iraq beyond March, 2008. Obviously there are other issues.
The right seems to be variously disturbed by withdrawal of troops rather than increase, talking to the Syrians and Iranians, and maybe influencing Israel.
As amateur pundits, we have a right, perhaps a duty, to criticize any proposal that we perceive as less than ideal. But it is also of value to put ourselves in the position of those who have to decide whether to accept or reject the ISG plan, which is, according to my old Congressman Lee Hamilton, a group of interdependent proposals that must be accepted in toto. If the deciders reject the proposal, they have to be willing to accept and explain why they accept the continuing division and paralysis on the issue in this country, or the possibility that withdrawal of substantially all troops will allow/cause an even greater pogrom against those who supported the Americans or the US-created government.
That said, what disturbs me about the proposal is (1) the suggestion that training of Iraqis as soldiers/police is the panacea [Saddam's police and military seemed pretty well trained...it's not an art unknown to the people]. whereas the real questions concern how and by whom the country will be governed, and
(2) keeping a very significant number of soldiers in Iraq [50-70,000, I guess], no matter their assignment, seems likely to increase the possibility that some atrocity or atrocities will occur that will assure continuous involvment and entanglement in the internal warfare of Iraq (guaranteeing more American dead and wounded, with an uncertain effect on the Iraqi people.)
I think that members of Congress of both parties who see the problems ahead and behind have a very difficult choice on the ISG recommendations. If I were one, and I could be convinced that the President would implement the recommendations if Congress agreed (which is what Baker, Hamilton et al will be trying to facilitate in the next weeks and months), I might have to vote “aye” on the package.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
“I say encourage Arab-on-Arab violence but leave us out of it.â€
Bill O’Reilly? Is that you?
December 7th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Another critique of the report, from Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12746550/that_iraq_report_more_of_the_same
December 7th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
“Why not ask the Palestinians to provide the peace first, as a ‘logical precondition’ for Israeli withdrawal?”
There’s nothing logical about asking someone to stopping attacking you while you steal their land, on the premise that you’ll give it back if they just calm down long enough.
Israel’s leadership makes it clear that it considers the occupied territories part of Israel based on religious and historical claims and/or the right of conquest.
Given that fact, how could it be logical for the Palestinians to eschew self-defense and/or violence to end the occupation?
Nor is it practical to rely on the Palestinians to adopt pacifism as a method to win their land back. As many here have noted, Israel’s program of assassinations, collective punishment and propaganda have, first and foremost, vanquished the credibility of Palestinian moderates, leaving the most radical elements to take control.
Moderate Islam is the only force that can contain or destroy radical Islam.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
“Israel’s leadership makes it clear that it considers the occupied territories part of Israel based on religious and historical claims and/or the right of conquest.”
That doesn’t really reflect Ohlmert’s thinking at this point and certainly doesn’t speak for Amir Peretz who’s always been dovish. Not that long ago Israel offered to cede most of the West Bank and the Palestinian leadership refused. Perhaps they wanted a better deal. Perhaps they simply didn’t (and don’t) want to deal. I believe it’s the latter but would like to be convinced otherwise. I didn’t ask for the Palestinians to adopt pacifism. I explicitly stated that I wouldn’t make such a demand. I was merely trying to argue that asking Israel to give up its bargaining position prior to negotiating was a non-starter. It’s the sort of demand that only makes sense when you view the Israelis as essentially demonic and the Palestinians as essentially and eternally innocent, that is, when you close your eyes to the actual complexities of the situation.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Marc,
Your analysis of the ISG report is very good. I keep on thinking back on how Northern Ireland made peace, and one thing that happened, I believe, was that the outside parties–U.S., Britain, the Irish-Americans–stopped fanning the flames but committed themselves to the peace process. Do someone offhand know more about the pace process in Northern Ireland? If my memory is accurate, then it’s important that Syria, Iran & other neighbors to Iraq not fan the flames within Iraq but commit to helping out, so that part ISG is 100% right. But will Bush make a 100% about face and talk to Iran and Iraq? He doesn’t particulary like to change his mind in the past. If the ISG report gives Bush cover to change his policy re Iran & Syria, good.
Also, Marc, you’re right that the solution is political in Iraq, not military. The ISG as you said has failed entirely to see that Iraq needs a political solution, so their recommentations are failures and have nothing to do with reality.
As you said, the ISG report finally lets in reality in its ” indictment of both the military and foreign policy of the Bush administration.” ISG ignored reality in its reccommendations, so its doomed to failure.
But someone in Congress or the Senate will crash into reality with his or her ideas that the ISG policy and the Bush policy are still failing miserably and Iraquis and U.S. soldiers continue to die. We can coalesence around those persons just as in the anti-Vietnam war movement supported the 1st few anti-war Senators who were Hatfield and McCarthy. We build political support for the anti=war senators and Congresspeople.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
If you want to know more about the “peace process” in Northern Ireland, here are a few places to look:
http://www.sluggerotoole.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_Agreement
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/csc/index.html
December 7th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Let me repeat what I said yesterday. The importance of the ISG Report is not the list of recommendations – which are going to be moot anyway given the continuing deterioration there. No the significance is the Establishment’s realization that Iraq is a fiasco from which we have to extricate ourselves as fast and “honorably” as possible. And that without discussions involving all issues – particularly the Arab-Israeli struggle – no lasting peace is possible in the region.
Now this may seem to be a conclusion on the order of Capt Reynaud’s “Discovery” that there was gambling at Rick’s Place but it is the source that gives this power. The members of the ISG are not a bunch of Left-Wing peaceniks, Pan Arabists, Right Wing Isolationists or Cindy Sheehan’s immediate family. They represent the latest incarnation of “The Wise Men (and now Women)” and they have totally repudiated Bush. No wonder he looked so glum and that daddy broke down the other day. They had to know this was coming.
The issue now is how hard it will be for shrub to face reality. To face another screw-up in a long line of screw-ups. To let dad once again bail him out. It is not going to be pretty.
Finally, I repeat. NEITHER party wants Iraq on the table in 2008. Everyone will want it behind them and that is the crucial fact. So the next few months will be all about Dems and Reps getting together to get out as painlessly as possible. And that will be painful indeed.
Sorry but every option now is terrible. And everyone knows it. But now it has the imprimatur of the Great and The Good – We are well and truly f**ked
Marty Peretz and Chris Hitchens will not be happy campers and the folks at the WEEKLY STANDARD will need strong drink.
December 7th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
And now I know its official. Yesterday Tom Freidman went on “Imus in the Morning” and said the only thing left to do was set a date by which all US Forces would leave. Guess the world is not so flat after all!
December 7th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
And some political news for those who still think Hillary is inevitable. On the day of the ISG Report she appeared with “Holy Joe” Lieberman to announce their support for . . .
Ratings on Video Games!
Yeah, she’ll wow them in the primaries with this couragous stand!
December 7th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
Question:
Where’s Reg? Has he been declared an “enemy combatant?” Or just forgot to the pay the AOL bill?
December 7th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Mavis — it’s unfortunate that you can’t respond to the post with anything but a nose raising. I’m sure that if you were like myself and anxiously awaiting your brother’s return from there, you might feel a bit differently. But as usual with most armchair moralists, you do nothing but stick your nose in the air wishing that people could deal with the imminent death of Americans with more aplomb. I spit on your ivory towerism.
Evets — my confidence in the ability to start a war in the Middle East is bolstered by the history of Arab-on-Arab violence. It wouldn’t take much for history to repeat itself. The episode that I predict will play out, no matter America’s involvement. To wish or think otherwise is yet more ostrich-like behavior — the same type of behavior that led us into the ridiculous conflict in the first place.
Americans have long ignored the fact that Arabs have made a science of waging stupid, pointless wars to noone’s benefit. No amount of ‘democracy’ or ‘economic aid’ or ‘education is going to change that fact.
Michael T. — my ‘we’ is America. Your ‘we’ may be some global brotherhood … but you might want to check with the Iraqis about how brotherly they’re feeling right now with you. I doubt very much the feelings are reciprocated.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
Kevin — Bill O’ Reilly?!?! Oh please … I wouldn’t support this stupid pointless exercise under any circumstance. I want our men and women HOME NOW.
People keep repeating this:
This was an illegal war and prolonging an illegal is wrong …
This was an illegal war and prolonging an illegal is wrong …
This was an illegal war and prolonging an illegal is wrong …
This was an illegal war and prolonging an illegal is wrong …
December 7th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Vivien -
Nobody doubts that it would be easy to start a war in the Mideast. According to my watch it’s already started. However, it might be premature to claim so insouciantly that it will be to anyone’s benefit. That’s what sounds so Neoconnish. And in fact, Bill O’Reilly, who probably cares little about his environmental footprint, does agree with your Iraq solution.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Evets — I stand corrected. I don’t watch TV so I wouldn’t know O’ Reilly’s opinion.
But I’m not a neocon. For whatever cynical reason they wanted this war (so many selfish reasons to choose from), I have always unequivocally opposed this war. I’m not looking for WIN. I’m looking for the way to withdraw as fast as possible without all the bullshit death throes of Vietnam. Letting the two sides fight this ugly thing out without wasting more American lives and money IS THE ONLY BENEFIT I predict.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
Vivien writes: “let the others kill themselves as long as they want. It’s all to our benefit.â€
Percentage of Iraq’s population under 15 years old: almost 40%. More kids in mass graves in Iraq — yeah, that really works for America, doesn’t it? Will there be more of them if we leave? Fewer of them? Make your case either way, but don’t tell me you just don’t care what happens to them, or that because a stupid president and his gang got us into this situation, it’s not our problem.
“Letting the two sides fight this ugly thing out without wasting more American lives and money IS THE ONLY BENEFIT I predict.”
That’s not a benefit. That’s the disappearance of two drawbacks, and probably only the temporary appearance of improvement, in the long run.
It’s interesting that Juan Cole recently compared the ISG recommendations with a 10-point plan he offered two years ago, and finds a lot of alignment. He does feel, however, that at this point it’s almost certainly too late for such measures.
Solutions? I don’t have any, or at least I don’t have any that are politically possible. It’s all well and good to talk about how we can just wall ourselves off from a general Middle East conflagration, tighten our belts, use less oil. But that’s a generation-long project (at least), and it should have started a generation ago.
December 8th, 2006 at 12:53 am
Vivien:
With your “I say encourage Arab-on-Arab violence but leave us out of it” comment, you’re parroting some remarks O’Reilly made earlier this week. i can’t help it if you’re doing that.
December 8th, 2006 at 1:28 am
There’s very little here to cheer me up except one thing: with Vivien *and* Bill O’Reilly on the same page about “let ‘em kill each other — I’ll take Kurdistan!”, I see yet more evidence that my long-predicted Kurdistan Petrostate Quasi-Exit Strategy has lurched toward formal inception another inch or so. The political will for such an eventuality seems to be emerging. Pehaps soon, Russ Feingold and the departing Rick Santorum will be singing in harmony on this one?
For, surely, in the run-up to the war, in lieu of any detailed planning for post-war conditions, people in the know were asking each other, “So what are we gonna do if it all goes sour and the American people become war-weary and turn against the whole adventure?” And the answer, after a close look at recent Iraqi history, regional sentiments, territorial claims by Kurds, and maps of Iraq’s petrochemical reserves, was surely glaringly obvious.
Say it loud. Say it proud. “Screw the frickin’ Arabs! I’ll take Kurdistan!”
Can you say it, children?
I knew you could.
December 8th, 2006 at 5:15 am
Someone asked if Vivien was really O’Reilly in drag, but if she really is a woman then I would say more likely Ann Coulter has come calling. But an Ann Coulter who now thinks we should get out of Iraq.
December 8th, 2006 at 8:13 am
One has to wonder where Bunker has been for the last 50 years in the Arab Israeli dispute. My guess is half of it not born yet and the last four being indoctrinated in one of our hate-America lUniversity madrassas.
Now for reality. It is not the current ‘occupied’ terror-tory the radical Arabs are interested in, except to use it as a launching point to recover ALL the occupied territory. This includes Israel itself of course. This is what all Arabs were after when they lost one hell of a lot more territory than Israel now occupies in a war THEY started in order to ‘occupy’ Israel.
Name the only two countries in the long history of war Bunker that has given back territory willingly they have won, with the blood of their young, in a war they didn’t start, for the sake of peace? No it isn’t Russia or Egypt or Jordan or Syria or Iran or Iraq………or AN other. It is the two you have been trained to hate….America and Israel.
The US and Israel are the peaceful nations, and thank god the most powerful militarily….which is really what pisses off the left. The US not only gave back all the territory they won in WWII, but spent gobs of its own money, after losing gobs of its citizens lives, to rebuild them before giving they back to those who attacked them.
Israel has tried hard to follow the same policy….for peace. It has given back the large majority of territory it won, in a war launched to destroy them, for the promise of land-for-peace. Egypt and Jordan have kept their promise, Syria and Palestine have not because they refuse to accept Israel as as a state.
It is not the US or Israel’s fault Palestine, Syria and Iran are poorly led. The people choose their leaders. They choose leaders of confrontation, hate, and promises of continued conflict.
We are forced to try to contain them……for world peace in the long run. Passivism in the short run has never worked and never will against agressors.
December 8th, 2006 at 8:36 am
The US did not “win” territory in WW2. They along with Russians, others, liberated territory…vastly different from Israel’s stated agend, from the beginning of Zionism, to expand its borders.
December 8th, 2006 at 8:50 am
Actually it’s Arab on Indo-European to be exact.
December 8th, 2006 at 8:54 am
The Califate once “occupied” a vast area, but I take it that was OK or just ignored is more the case?
December 8th, 2006 at 9:32 am
Perhaps Jim R can explain to us why Israeli school children are taught that the occupied territories are part of their country. I am sure he will come up with something good.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6210144.stm
December 8th, 2006 at 11:00 am
Use whatever ad hominem you will, but you haven’t been able to point out why I’m wrong.
Some questions:
1. Why is a 15-year old Iraqi more of a concern than a 19-year old American GI? Is there some intrinsic delta value I’m missing?
2. So if both lives are equal, then why should we spend more 19-20 year old American lives? Or for that matter 30 year old American lives for this misadventure?
I’ve read the ISG report and it’s bovine scatology at its best. Engage Iran and Syria? Encourage the Iraqis to grow a backbone or become civilized? Wow … some Rubik’s Cube wiz really was at work here.
Iran and Syria are winning by doing what they’ve been doing … They will not engage on any palatable terms.
Screw them. There — Kevin, happy? I don’t care. I’m sick of Americans dying for a war I didn’t start, protested against, and voted for supposed anti-war candidates.
This is a not a situation where we’ll walk out with a conventional V-I Day win. It’s a dirty fight with some of the dirtiest fighters on the planet. People who fund suicide bombers and use child human shields are our adversaries. Certainly trying to find some nebulous honor in this war is quixotic at best.
And yes — I’m a woman. You’d be surprised how pissed off and militant we can get when family members are threatened. I owe it to my brother to fight the kleptocratic elites bullshit and the ivory tower apathy of some of the sheeple on this thread … and to get him home.
December 8th, 2006 at 11:03 am
BTW, I’m not surprised to see parroting by people here of left vs. right drivel.
This isn’t a left vs. right issue. It’s a matter of ending the usage of the American military as a bully-boy adjunct of corporate America or a liberal punching bag for a return of Democratic power.
Our boys are PEOPLE. YOUNG PEOPLE. Get it through your head … Young men being shot at is a bad thing.
December 8th, 2006 at 11:39 am
“The Califate once “occupied†a vast area, but I take it that was OK or just ignored is more the case?”
Hey Mark York, what is this “califate” you speak of? A new drink at Starbucks? Sorry for the trolling but I seriously dislike this guy. As for evets, I doubt that he’ll ever be convinced. Since June over 300 Palestinians have been killed I think the number on the Israeli side is in the single digits. Yet Peretz (who presided over the montrous campaign in Lebenon) is a “dove” and its the Palestinians who must renounce violence. Wake up
December 8th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
If you have to ask well…But in the interest of education try the Ottoman “Empire” for a more recent example, or perhaps the Moors. Or are these empires exempt from scrutiny as I asked?
December 8th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Yorkster youre pretty obstuse… its spelt Caliphate..I was joking with you
December 8th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Jim R. You’ve got me all wrong. I love America and Israel, more, it seems, than most. One of the things I love most about America is its excellence in higher education.
America’s universities remain the envy of the world and continue to attract a widely disproportionate share of the world’s most intelligent, creative, learned thinkers.
You call American universities “madrassas,†but you and I both know that the taliban who emerge from real madrassas share your inflamed resentment against mainstream academic achievement. They rail, just as you do, against the liberal academic establishments in their own societies, such as they are. They make war, just as you do, because they have trained their minds to aggressively shut out facts, logic and learning that challenge their ideology.
What makes America’s universities great is their fundamental commitment to free thought and expanding the horizons of knowledge. The inevitable flaws in the system don’t negate its essential beauties.
Your antipathy for higher learning is telling and shared by a significant minority of Americans. Look at an election results map of America. Bush voters are scarcest in every city, town and village that has an institution of higher learning. Reagan/Bush conservatives’ disdain for education tells us how little consideration they give the values that make America great.
I have to admit it will be amusing to see how the Republican party deals with the issue of whether it is best lead by a person of modest learning and intelligence.
W appeals to the proudly undereducated because he is so demonstrably one of them.
There are signs, though, that the other end of the Republican party—the well-educated, wealthy faction who tend to vote exclusively on the expectation of tax relief and/or military pork—are learning the hard way that the neo-Reagan/Rove formula is economically unsustainable. Someone will have to pay for the Iraq war, and upper middle-class Republicans seem to be at long last registering the scent that it might be them, come what may from their Halliburton shares.
So, the GOP voter that hires more than one accountant to handle his taxes is bound to be looking for a 2008 candidate that can form full sentences and may have even achieved positive distinction in the dread satanic cesspools of higher learning.
But there is a reason the last two two-term Republican presidents were men who had trouble expressing themselves rationally and relied almost exclusively on prepared texts in public and on sycophants in private. (Reagan’s intellectual infirmity was at least partly clinical, but that may be beside the point, as it was known by voters to exist nonetheless.) The Jim R/American Idiot wing of the GOP may go down, but not without fighting for the survival of stupidity as a political tactic, if not a way of life.
Lastly, Jim R: I repeat my challenge to you. Give me one example, indeed, one single word you’ve uttered, that demonstrates your love for America. Everything I’ve ever read by you is dripping with contempt for American values.
December 8th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Well that’s easy for you to say, “spelt” she who always uses such “correct punctuation.” I suppose when the facts aren’t on your side one has to grasp at something.
In that vein, Reagan’s letters and speeches written himself don’t attest to this alleged infirmity. He didn’t go to Harvard and Yale but the last two presidents did. Sometimes that isn’t enough.
December 8th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Vivien’s attitude toward Arab instability is irresponsibly cavalier, but the essence of her analysis is spot on.
U.S. military power won’t close the Shia-Sunni divide in Iraq or the region.
The U.S. aggression in Iraq has merely inflamed that divide into wider, more open military conflict.
A U.S. policy of “letting Muslims kill each other” isn’t really a tactic or strategy so much as an acknowledgment of geopolitical reality.
Moderate, sane Arab leaders are dying, literally, for the chance to de-escalate the sectarian divisions within Islam. Insane Arab radicals are killing to deepen it, and the U.S., alas, finds itself fomenting the latter or reinforcing them by more direct means.
Again, the question isn’t what the U.S. can do to destroy Islamic radicals from either side, but what it can do to support Islamic moderates in both camps.
December 8th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Vivien, I don’t have a rock-solid case that staying in Iraq would prevent something worse than what would happen if we left. I feel bad for you that your brother is over there. However, I ask you to consider the following.
What if somebody DID make a rock-solid case that our leaving Iraq would mean an all-out civil war, one whose death toll dwarfs what we’ve seen so far, one that ended up killing more noncombatants than otherwise — including hundreds of thousands of that UNDER-15 (not fifteen year old) demographic, which includes not just 14-year-olds and 13-year-olds, but infants born yesterday.
Would your brother say that it’s worth the sacrifice of a few thousand more U.S. troops, and perhaps even of himself, to prevent hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, from dying in such a civil war? How does HE feel about being over there?
December 9th, 2006 at 12:56 am
“Reagan’s letters and speeches written himself don’t attest to this alleged infirmity.”
Good point, publius. It is, indeed, an open question as to whether Reagan was actually as dumb as he sounded and acted.
You seem to suggest that Reagan, a man with no discernible academic or intellectual achievement, chose to conceal his brilliance. Even if that were the case, my point still stands. A large segment of Republicans like presidents of modest intelligence.
December 9th, 2006 at 7:33 am
“Reagan, a man with no discernible academic or intellectual achievement”
No, on the contrary he was a college graduate in a time when most weren’t and successful in radio broadcasting before moving on to acting. I assure you this feat is indeed an achievement you’d be hard pressed to duplicate not to mention getting elected governor of the largest state and the presidency.
The current president went to Harvard and Yale. Say what you will about his decisions which I abhorr on a factual level, but that doesn’t speak to a lack of education, despite ideological blindspots and biases. Yours are steadfast in the light of facts against your thesis.
December 10th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Sorry Pub, success in acting and radio are not academic or intellectual achievements. Nor is merely attending Harvard or Yale, especially when you were admitted, like W, through “legacy” affirmative action.
December 11th, 2006 at 11:45 am
I’m afraid they are indeed and he was a college graduate before it was fashionable. You couldn’t be a successful actor or writer if your life depended on it. As for legacy, competition was much less fierce then than now with fewer applicants, but context won’t bother your shallow thesis much I’d guess. It never does with true partisans. I can say these things and still disagree with both of these presidents. That’s the difference.
December 12th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Publius: It is debatable whether Reagan was successful as an actor. He made a living for a few years, but found himself instead seeking success, and finding it after a fashion, as a Red Scare stool pigeon in the actors union.
You call that success? pathetic!
And as for context, you are the one ignoring it here by absurdly suggesting that we can compare Reagan’s college graduation to what the average joe of his age got. He was president, Pub, not an average joe.
When we say Reagan was dumb, we mean he was dumb compared with every other president. That’s the only context that matters.
December 14th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
I’m saying he started from nothing just like say Bill Clinton did. This is possible in America but not where you are from. That’s the difference.
Your logic path is circular. The average joe in his day didn’t go to college. He did. See the difference it can make? Try looking.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:05 am
bbc arabic com…
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….
April 27th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
United Arab Emirates Hotel…
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….
April 29th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Arab Real Estate…
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
juegos online ruleta…
Parole vente de jeu de poker poker spielen download http www yachting casino bonus bei poker roulette europea…
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:32 am
poker game freeware…
Before that poker en ligne sans mise free christian ringtones carte a jouer poker www poker game 24 ringtones free…
June 10th, 2008 at 10:45 am
jeu poker omaha gratuites…
Ilexiste download mp3 ringtones achat jeu de poker casino en internet gratis ringtones la règle de la roulette…
March 13th, 2010 at 7:19 am
One more exciting article coming from your weblog
Whenever does it end….preferably never ever
December 13th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Is it my net browser or the internet site, but I can only see half the post. How should I restore this?