I feel like I’m only posting this because BrainGlutton hasn’t gotten around to it, but how do people feel about the ISG’s report (obligatory PDF warning here)?
Having skimmed the relevant portions, I feel like there’s no there there. I see the same wishful hope that the Iraqi government will somehow become a tiger overnight, bringing order, discipline, and brotherly love. It’s not that the report sugarcoats things especially, but the notion that we can still make a difference seems a little weary to me – especially since the report places the burden squarely on the Iraqi government to take charge and hit milestones.
I did find the use of the catchphrase “New Diplomatic Offensive” a little risible. It reminds me a bit of the “War Against Indiscipline” in Nigeria of yore. It’s something of a no-brainer – sit down and talk with Iran and Syria – but again, can those horses, once led to water, be made to drink?
To me, the interesting bits were those ones most peripheral to the Iraqi situation – for example, Recommendation 16: Return the Golan to Syria! (with preconditions, of course).
It recommends that we begin to withdraw in 2008. Begin, mind you. And that this withdrawal will be consistent with “conditions”. Who, do you think, will decide as to whether those “conditions” are appropriate? Would that be the Deciderer?
Why do you think the report would alter Bush’s policy, 'luci? He has stated on numerous occasions, as explicitly as possible, that he is not going to withdraw troops from Iraq. Period. “I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me.”
I know some of the news media has been acting like this is a big deal that will change things. I’m still uncertain where they got that idea…then again, I wonder a lot about where they get some of their ideas, but that’s for a different thread.
I predicted this before…maybe someone can tell me if I’m crazy. My prediction is we won’t leave Iraq until the year 2010 at the minimum unless Congress miraculously grows a backbone and firmly says “NO!” to Bush’s 3 billion a week allowance. Even 2010 seems sorta early to me; you’d think the new prez will want to wander around the desert over there a couple years. It’s not like he (no, not she) will pull the troops out right away. It’d be too shameful.
About the only thing I fear more than The Man Who Fell Up doing nothing except stubbornly resisting is that he might take bold! and decisive! action. Goddess forbid he takes bold and decisive action. He seems to really believe it, that he is The Leader, that he is making unpopular but necessary decisions. That history will judge him a prescient and perceptive statesman, leaving giant footprints in the Sands of History.
He just looks like he doesn’t know whether to shit or go bowling. He knows exactly what to do. Just like he knew to trade Sammy Sosa. Like he knew that the UN was bullshitting him and helping Saddam hide his vast armament, that Scott Ritter was a lying sack, and knew that as soon as we seized Baghdad, he would be proven right all along, vast warehouses full of Sauron and vexing nerve agents, ketchup gas, animal-human hybrid research labs full of stem cells…
Like I mentoned on another thread, there’s a good chance that the last soldier to die in Iraq hasn’t graduated high school yet.
Does it? I saw where they recommned that all combat troops be withdrawn by early 2008. That is, all combat troops not needed for “force protection”, whatever that means. From CNN:
As for the recommendations… whatever one has to say about them, they’re better than what Bush would do on his own. I’d push for more, faster, but if Bush signed on to their recommendations, well, that’s more than I would expect.
Diplomatic Offensive? My goodness, can the man think in terms other than in war metaphors?
“It’s the War on Bilateral Discussion!” … instead of politics.
“It’s the War on Reticulated Fortifications!” … instead of checkers.
“It’s the War on Contralateral Unpleasantries!” … instead of being nice to people.
A commission formed itself to help a sitting president. His mismanagement is so egregious that a group of dignitaries so upset by the incompetence of this administration and its failed policies decided to get together to advise him. . First we have to understand the enormity of it. A group of insiders felt they could not let this keep going on. This is unheard of.
I understand and am sorry, 'luci. I’m actually not that certain why I said that. On one hand I think we should discuss options and what not on their own merits. On the other hand we do have Bush in the White House, which I guess I’d rather forget about and thus prefer to focus on the aspects of the strategy itself, in a sort of vacuum. But that’s obviously not right, either, pragmatically…until 2009.
Or, as the soon to be retired Rumsfeld might say, “You go to war with the President you have, not the President you might want or wish to have at a later time.”
Speaking of pulling out troops, what’s up with the long term stability of the army? I thought I remember reading many moons ago about how the U.S. army is critically overstretched and guys were on their third/fourth rotation and all sorts of wild stuff. How much longer can we keep this same force there even if we wanted? Anyone knowledgeable in this area?
As for the report, I’m on page 50. So far it has been an excellent summary of the fucked upness of Iraq in a very general way. I’ve been disturbed by what seems like very passive hints or tips every once in awhile. Words to the effect of ‘Shia leadership should rein in control of the death squads and militias’ or ‘Iraqi ministries need to return to pre-war levels of x and y" or "The influence of Iran should be positive instead of negative.’ Well, yeah, if only saying it made it so, we’d all have big penises and our wallets would be bursting.
But I’m just getting onto the actual, listed recommendations part. Some of these are just scary because the inclusion in this report suggests they haven’t been attempted at any time in the last three years…yeah, talking to the neighboring countries might be a good idea.
I can understand why many of these countries would want to help us, even if only indirectly for PR purposes.
But Iran? What in the world? They have Uncle Sam’s nuts in a vise and are squeezing with relish…as far as I can see they’ve pretty much done everything they can short of declaring war on us. Why in the world would they want to help us make nice nice in Iraq?
The report seem to acknowledge all of the above but then says the world will see Iran’s “rejectionist attitude” if we bluntly ask them for help…and this will somehow isolate Iran when they say no. Correct me of I’m wrong, but Iran is allied with the Russians and the Chinese, right? And Iran is tackling the great Satan and winning cred on the Arab street.
Well, not that it gives me any hope of actually having a long term effect, but I just loved it when Justice O’Connor responded at the news conference today that it is “you” (i.e. journalists) who have the power to see that the recommendations get implemented.
Well, GW isn’t running for anything so the press has no power over his actions. Despite the Democrats having taken over both House and Senate their margin isn’t enough over Republicans to override GW. They can’t do much no matter how much the press pressures them.
I agree that the press should keep after the politicians to fix GW’s mess, but if he digs in his heels not much can happen. The public doesn’t have any input until 2008.