The project was apparently the idea ofRep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va).
Did anybody else get the impression, reading between the lines, that the ISG is sort of hoping for a military coup?
The main thing, says Broder, is that, whatever becomes of Iraq, the members of the ISG had an exhilirating bipartisan experience.
I haven’t read it but the question is:
What military though? The Kurdish faction? The Shia faction, the Sunni faction? The infiltrated militia components?
The report, according to newspaper articles, acknowledges the sectarian and regional loyalty problems with the army.
My god, did anyone else feel compelled after every paragraph to look up and check if this was from The Onion?
I think the media have mischaracterized this a little. The report dwells at great length on the problems of sectarianism within the police, but makes the point that the military is relatively less tainted. One of the recommendations is for the military to take overall responsibility for security away from the police.
Someone on Imus this morning said that a big problem is that Bush’s first choice for Iraq - one big, happy democratic family - is the second choice of all the major groups there. The first choice of the Kurds is to go their own way. The first choice of the Sunnis it to be in charge again. I forget what the Shia want.
Given what we’ve seen of Bush’s rigid personality, I doubt this report will much influence him. Hell, he probably wouldn’t be influenced by a report written by God. Or even one by Barney.
Can you quote the section where it says that is “the main thing”? I couldn’t find it.
I’ve read this in several different places, although I can’t be sure that they’re not all relying on the same source. Seems to make sense, though, since police are focused much more locally than the military.
What I was surprised (and shocked) to learn in the last few weeks is that the Iraqi military is still under US control. I don’t see how anyone can clamor for the Iraqi government to step up to the plate on security issues if we control one the main tools for achieving security.
The whole thing, my friend. The entire column is about The Wonders Of Bipartisanship and Working Together Across Party Lines. Broder asks whether, and brings in quotes supporting, the notion that this might be a model for future Bipartisan Moments, and doesn’t bother in the least with whether the report might have a snowball’s chance in hell of aiding a certain country in the Middle East.
Iraq went all but unmentioned in Broder’s column.
There’s a good but bleak opinion piece in the Times today on the military aspects of the recommendations. As it points out, the idea of building up the Iraqi forces so they can take charge of security is not a new one – we’ve been at it for years, with no real success.
No, that still doesn’t support your claim. Is there a rule that everyone must write about the report itself? The guy wanted to take a different angle on the thing since 9,000 other columnists* were going to be saying basically the same thing. You don’t, by any chance, hold a grudge against the guy, do you?
*Yes, I exagerate.
John, you’re making a mountain out of a molehill here. I certainly took Broder’s piece the way RTFirefly did, and you’re free to disagree, but this strikes me as a side issue to a side issue.
It’s not like Broder’s some small fish who has to find a different angle to stand out from the crowd. He’s the so-called Dean of D.C. punditry, a guy who plays a major role in defining what’s Important and what isn’t amongst the pundit class.
What he decided was Important about the ISG was its bipartisanship, which would be no surprise in the case of some lesser matter, but seemed a bit out of place with respect to Iraq.
Broder is pretty much obsessed with bipartisanship, centrism, working across party lines, Unity '08, yada yada; this is old news to WaPo readers. This is why a whole bunch of people (including our own Moe, a few posts up) have commented that this Broder column was an impressive bit of self-parody.
You kidding? It would be like having a grudge against Mister Rogers.
I just saw a program on the economic part of the study. It apparently suggests full privatization of the oil. It wants the oil to be under control of a central government and suggests the Iraqi Constitution be rewritten to say so. Also the US to be the main advisor in the oil and the government . It wants reorganization of oil to be a corporate enterprise.
I think getting Iran and/or Syria involved in this is a non-starter even if the Admin were willing to consider it. Their governments have enough troubles – e.g., Syria is a Sunni country with an Alawite Shi’a president and ruling elite – why stir the pot? And what could either country usefully bring to the table anyway?
How can the oil be privatized and under central government control at the same time?
Anyway, privatizing Iraq’s oil is an idea that was floated before, and was shot down by the U.S. oil companies.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/45190/ Because we will control the loose national government. This article goes through it .
Regarding that particular recommendation:
This morning I was watching an interview with Mort Zuckerman of the NY Daily News on FNC. His concern with getting Iran and Syria involved–apart from the obvious “nations that harbor terrorists” argument-- was that we would be turning our backs on our “loyal Middle East allies Saudi Arabia and Jordan” if we allow Iran and Syria to assist in stabilizing Iraq.
My question is: if they are such “loyal allies”, why didn’t the ISG recommend involving them? It would seem to me that they would be just as concerned with stabilizing the region as anyone.
The more I think about the “tilt” (as referenced above, post #10, Russ Feingold quote about how the ISG was exclusive of such persons who had stated an early disapproval of the war…) the more bugged I get about it! Sure, there are Democrats, that’s what makes it bi-partisan. What chaps my hide is the as far as stated views on the advisability/morality of the war go, only one side is represented. And that just doesn’t get it, that stacks the deck. It would be like claiming as “bi-partisan” an electoral committee than includes an equal number of Dems and Republicans, but all from center right to right. It precludes a whole spectrum of potential views and needful insights from people who were, I hasten to remind, right all along!
Even more than that, how is that the panel was composed of all manner of intelligent and capable people, but none with any demonstrated expertise in the matter at hand? Why not Juan Cole? How about Paul Krugman? Micheal Moore. (all right, scratch that one, catering budget and all, but still…)