America Coming To Its Own Consensus About The ISG
By Rick Moran Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The blue blooded "wise men" have spoken.
The Iraq Study Group has dumped their report on the American people and surprisingly, there seems to be a somewhat unanimous feeling about what our foreign policy elites labored to produce; it sucks.
The right hates it because "victory" isn't mentioned. And because the group gave an honest assessment of what was actually happening in Iraq. And because they want the United States to talk to Syrian cutthroats and Iranian fanatics. And because it calls the President's policy a failure. And because James Baker is a poopie head.
Taking these bullet points one at a time:
1. Since the world, the media, and the left have already decided we've "lost" in Iraq there is no sense in working toward something that doesn't exist.
2. The ISG assessment of what is happening on the ground, in the councils of government, and in the streets is, by my reading, not scary enough. Very little about the Shia v Shia battle being fought in the south between Sadrites and the Badr Brigades (where the two sides ignore the government in Baghdad and have set up their own Islamic courts and police forces). Nothing on Shia incursions into Kurdish oil areas in the north that has resulted in violent confrontations. In fact, no word on the PKK, the Kurdish terrorist group, and their influence on the the Peshmerga or the Kurdish government and how that spells trouble for NATO ally Turkey.
3. The ISG recommendation that we talk to Syria and Iran is probably a non-starter as far as bi-lateral exchanges go. But in a regional framework, it might just work. I will say to my friends on the right that we desperately need the help of Sunni Arabs in Saudi Arabia as well as the political muscle of Jordan and Egypt if we are going to get a handle on both the insurgency and the sectarian violence. And in any regional context, you simply cannot ignore the Iranians and the Syrians. Such a conference would not be rewarding them for anything and may lead to their helping us.
Why? The one thing that neither Syria nor Iran wants is a failed state on their borders. Syria is already bursting at the seams with Iraqi refugees, straining their ability to take care of them and/or integrate them into Syrian society. Something similar could befall Iran if all hell breaks loose in Iraq as Shias stream toward the only bordering state with a majority Shia population. In short, it is in the national interest of Syria and Iran to help tamp down the violence and prop up the Iraqi government if we make it clear that we're leaving.
How they would exercise their influence after that would be beyond our control anyway so why worry about it?
4. The President's policy is not working and hence, is a failure. This is one of those self-evident pronouncements from the ISG that they shouldn't have had to put in there but were forced to because of the extraordinary myopia of some of my righty friends. Let's give it the Reagan test, shall we?
* Are Iraqis better off today than they were two years ago?
* Is it easier for Iraqis to go and buy things in the stores than it was two years ago?
* Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was two years ago?
* Do you feel that Iraqi security is as safe as it was two years ago?
* Is America as respected in Iraq as it was two years ago?
With the possible exception of a marginally smaller unemployment rate (it's tough to get much worse than the estimated 50% unemployment rate from 2004) every Reagan inspired benchmark trends downward. Bush's plan is an utter and complete failure. Eleven million people voted for a government whose writ does not run much beyond Baghdad; a government people do not trust to protect them and a government that has proven itself weak, corrupt, divided, and unable to stem the vicious sectarian violence that kills 200 people a day.
These are not the conclusions of the media or left wing loons. Most of these conclusions come from our own military and State Department, from people whose job it is to give policy makers honest assessments of what is going on. I feel ridiculous having to say these things because this information is out there for anyone who is truly interested in finding out what is happening in Iraq. And at the moment, this idiotic denial of reality on the part of many on the right is not only getting on my nerves but making them part of the problem - as much as the idiot lefties who only want to get out of Iraq regardless of the consequences.
5. Yes. It's true. James Baker is a poopie head.
Only Baker could propose a regional conference of all the "important" countries in the Middle East and not include Israel. Only Baker could advocate putting pressure on Israel to commit suicide by returning the Golan Heights to their mortal enemy Syria. Only Baker could advocate a "right of return" for Palestinians (whose "return" would displace Israeli citizens who have lived on that land for nearly 60 years). And only Baker could advocate a peace between Israel and the Hamas terrorists that contracts the Jewish state to its 1967 borders.
On the left, they hate the ISG report because they see it as a gigantic conspiracy to deny them the fruits of their electoral victory. And because it doesn't advocate an immediate withdrawal of forces. And because the word "defeat" isn't found anywhere in the report. And because it isn't hard enough on Bush. And because Bush will ignore recommendations that they disagree with too. And because James Baker works for the Bush family and is a poopie head.
Although much harder to come up with intelligent commentary given the material, here are a few thoughts on liberal "critiques" of the report.
1. The ISG's mandate was to come up with recommendations on how to improve the situation in Iraq. They were not charged with validating leftist talking points about the war.
2. The consequences of an immediate withdrawal would be catastrophic . Even Democrats are coming around to that conclusion.
3. The word "defeat" is absent for the same reason that the word "victory" doesn't appear. Politics. And the fact there are still options that would bring the United States something short of both "victory" but a long way from total defeat (if they work). If not, we may revisit this issue in a couple of years.
4. The report doesn't blame Bush enough? I've seen this criticism on a couple of lefty websites and I'm puzzled by it. It reminds me of the criticism by the left about The Path to 9/11 where the Administration was rightly skewered for its handling of both the intelligence leading up to the tragedy as well as its handling of the attack while it was underway. But because the show dared to show some of the failings of the Clinton people, the entire project was condemned.
With the ISG report, it seems that because there wasn't a picture of Bush with a dunce cap on his head on the cover, the left believes they went too easy on him. No accounting for taste. Or stupidity when it comes to our lefty friends.
5. The idea that the left is complaining that Bush will ignore the recommendations of the ISG - recommendations that they violently disagree with - is pretty amusing. The irony inherent in their criticism seems to escape them which isn't surprising - the capability for introspection being necessary to appreciate this kind of an ironic juxtaposition is not present among most lefties.
6. Baker's ties to Bush 41 (and the shadowy Carlysle Group) have brought out both the humor and paranoia of the left. They actually applaud most of Baker's prescriptions for a general settlement between Hamas and the Jews since they would mean the almost certain destruction of Israel. And there have actually been some pretty funny allusions to Baker pulling "daddy boy's" chestnuts out the fire. But the descent into paranoia about the all powerful Carlysle Group wanting to control the world gets to be a bit much, especially when you consider that our corporate masters have botched things royally.
And yes, The left agrees. James Baker is indeed a poopie head.
Those Americans in the middle seem to take the attitude that the ISG's finished product has some good things and bad things but that most are disappointed. I mentioned the other day that Baker settled for a single when he might have tried for the home run. That seems to be the consensus among many Americans who view the group's finished product as an interesting, yet fatally flawed document.
It's not quite back to the drawing board on Iraq. But clearly we need a better "Way Forward" than that offered by the ISG.
Four years ago Iraqis were living under Saddam's policies.
Two years is fair given the chaos following liberation. And are you making the argument that Bush's policies are succeeding?
If so, gimme some of what you're smokin'...
Ooops. The question was about the President's policies, not Saddam's. And the Reagan test is a perfect barometer of whether or not Bush's policies are working.
I'd like to see some actual facts, instead of just blather that "Bush's policies aren't working!".
Give us a break, the mobies and the trolls have been spewing that for 3+ years now. Without any specific details to back you up, you're no different than any of them. Put up or shut the fsck up.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
Unbelievable.
The burden is on you to show me where the government of Iraq's authority runs outside of Baghdad. Or that there are hundreds of thousands of trained Iraqi troops ready to assist Americans in fighting the insurgency and keeping the peace in Baghdad. (Just as an aside, there are about 1200 Iraqi troops in Baghdad. There are supposed to be 3,000 but the PM can't get any other units to agree to serve in the capitol city. That was in StrategyPage - ya know, that real left wing rag of a military publication?)
The Pentagon itself says that there may be 8 brigades of Iraqi troops capable of operating on their own. After three fricking years of training the Iraqi Army to stand up so we can sit down, are you seriously trying to argue that our training policies are working when 8 lousy fricking brigades is all that we have to show for it?
The Iraqi police force is lousy with Sadrites and Badr Brigades. Not to mention other, smaller Shia militias who are more bloodthirsty than those guys. Where did they come from? The policies of the Bush Administration tried to fold the militias into the police force. Now these guys either turn the other way when citizens are hauled off the streets and executed or they are willing participants in the death squads.
I could go on but what's the point? The oil ministry is full of people stealing the country blind (there are lines for gas in Iraq where people wait 3 hours to fill their tanks). The Interior Ministry is Iran Central with its own group of thugs and death squads. BTW - this info is from our own military - maybe if you'd bother to read something besides WH press releases you'd find something out.
More? The Shia v Shia violence is the most underreported story in Iraq. The Sadrites and Badr Brigades are fighting it out in the south, carving out their own little empires and laughing at Maliki in Baghdad. They've got Islamic courts dispensing Sharia law and independent police forces who take orders from their militia commanders not any local government - who are scared witless of the militias anyway.
If you're not going to get informed on what is happening in Iraq, why bother commenting?
How's that for blather by the way?
and ill-informed.
The Pentagon itself says that there may be 8 brigades of Iraqi troops capable of operating on their own. After three fricking years of training the Iraqi Army to stand up so we can sit down, are you seriously trying to argue that our training policies are working when 8 lousy fricking brigades is all that we have to show for it?
I'm not going to pull a reverse-chickenhawk here but all this shows, Rick, is that you don't really have a clue about how long it takes to train troops to operate independently and it is equally probable you don't really understand what operating on their own even means. I expect this from some but criminy get a clue here.
To operate on its own a unit has to have medical, maintenance, transportation, intelligence, and on and on. The combat capablility is the first thing you acquire but without the above it doesn't do much good. Troops don't fight all that well when they aren't getting paid, when the aren't getting fed, when their equipment isn't repaired and replaced, and when they don't have medical care when they are shot.
I've had the experience of taking a unit from basic training through combat certification as a company commander in 7th Infantry Division. It took 18 months to certify a rifle company as combat ready, battalion certification took place at about 23 months. Brigade certification followed that.
The rest of this is just crap. Where I can show you that the Iraqis are in control of any number of provinces you're just going to say that those units and local governments don't respond to Baghdad.
Iraqis wait in line for gas because, like in Iran where they also wait in line for gas, Iraq is an exporter of crude oil and an importer of refined petroleum products. To say there is corruption in the process is pretty much like saying the sun is coming up in the east and is dispositive of just about nothing other than virtually all petroleum exporting nations in the Third World are rife with corruption.
I just fail to see where you have more qualifications here than the people you are calling uninformed. Lighten up.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
There's a lot in the ISG report for everyone to dislike, and also some stuff for each side to point to as validating their position. The bad points from our perspective have been pointed out already but the report does give political cover to remain in Iraq for another year or two. It's not as bad as it might have been.
I had four family members fight in Iraq and the opportunity to talk with three of them after they all came home. All three said that you might as well not even watch the news because it's not what is really happening over there.
There was progress being made that Americans don't hear about because a)the media never reports it, and b)this President is doing an entirely crappy job of talking to the American people about it. There was progress being made. And there still is progress being made.
That you say the report doesn't present a dire enough scenario of what's really happening in Iraq belies your true intentions towards this vein of reporting. Talk to someone who's been there and then tell me things are more dire than even this report paints them. It's ridiculous.
--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.
I guess we have to start calling the military a bunch of lying lapdogs, doing the bidding of the media.
How about George Bush? He said today that the assessment by the ISG was accurate. He a liar too?
And I give up. From here on out, believe what you want to. It's not worth trying to rebut people who are as stupid and dense as any lefty idiot I've ever tried to argue with.
Stupid and dense, huh? Idiot? Eds, can we clean this mess up please?
Maybe the problem is that you're trying to argue instead of have a rational discussion. Iraq is not all bad. There is good stuff happening there. The violence is mostly contained to 4 out of the 18 provinces there. That doesn't mean the whole country is going down the crapper. More to the point, this 'civil war' is mainly contained to one province, and specifically one city. That doesn't mean the whole country has been given over to sectarian violence.
My cousin, uncle, and brother all came back with stories of how they would roll into towns across Iraq and receive standing ovations from the Iraqi citizens who begin impromptu parades behind their Strykers or other vehicles. Stories of how the Iraqis would cheer for them when a school or hospital was reopened. Stories of how Iraqis would run up to them to thank them for the job they were doing there. How come those stories never make the news? How come you don't recognize that those things are going on?
How come you don't recognize that the Iraqis themselves - government and citizens there - have come out against the ISG recommendations? How come you don't recognize that they think the report does not show what is really going on over there?
The military has consistently said that we can win in Iraq and that the situation is not the same as the one the media presents. They are not liars. I am assuming that you have not been to Iraq nor spoken to multiple people who have. That does not make you a liar, but it does make you misinformed and incorrect on this incredibly important subject.
--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.
Stories told by loved ones who see a grunts eye view of what's going on hardly passes for analysis.
And are you ignoring everything I wrote? Evidently yes. They are killing each other in Basra and other southern cities - Shia on Shia violence which is what the real civil war will be about eventually anyway. There aren't enough Sunnis to do anything except get slaughtered in a genocidal purge by Shias. More than 15% of them have left in the last 2 years. Jordan has a million Sunni refugees. Syria even more.
Enough. Believe what you want. You're only kidding yourself and, may I say, showing your ignorance. The rest of the world knows what's going on in Iraq and its far beyond anything happening in Anbar or Baghdad.
who pissed in your flakes this morning?
You seem to be on a terror, and pretty strange.
And listening to the stories of loved ones, or as in my case, 3 good friends over there, I'll take their current opinions on the progress in Iraq over you, anyone here, and the ISG. Period. Have a good weekend.
Of course the "grunts" can't tell if we are winning or losing. Only the liberal "experts" can do that.
Lighten up, you seem to be the one ignoring or skipping over all of HeavyM's points. Of course three eye witness accounts are credible, that would be just fine in a US court of law. And there are lots of reports of troops saying the MSM doesn't report what is really going on - HeavyM didn't just pull this out of thin air. Whatever you think of HeavyM's relatives who served in Iraq (just grunts, right?), I didn't hear any first hand accounts from you.
Everyone loves to speak with 20/20 hindsight, saying what an idiot Bush is, and how they would have either fought this war mistake-free, or wouldn't have gone in to begin with. One fact is very clear in my mind - there has been no repeat of 9/11. When it comes to terror, you want to be the visiting team, and so far that's how Bush is playing. Whether you like it or not, there is no substitute for victory here. There are no half measures with terrorists, they won't have pity and spare us, so we need to come up with the most efficient way to kill them, period. Unconditional victory is, or should be, the goal.
Winning this war should have been the focus of the ISG report. Any ideas along these lines would be most helpful.
those who side with Baker have is that they talk about "Iraq" when they are really talking about "Baghdad". Think of what newspaper headlines would look like if the media started focusing on security issues here in the US and wrote only about downtown Detroit and DC, never mentioning that NYC is one of the safest in the world, etc.
There are really three Iraqs, and I'm not proposing petitioning the country. Southern Iraq is peaceful. Kurdish Iraq is peaceful and prosperous. Baghdad, Ramadi, Fallujah, etal are not. The terrorists and Sadr and playing the media like a cheap violin in the Sunni Triangle. If we concentrate force there, and kill enough people, it will quiet down there as well.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Why hasn't the government done more good news reports and stories on all these events? They should be produced and distributed even if the MSM ignores them to run the blood and gore stories.
They can be put on youtube, government sites, military channel etc...
Pass out camcorders to soldiers and let them do their own reports.
If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents
Rick, I read your post yesterday and have been thinking about what you said, my ignorance and all. I expect you are more informed than I am. What I am wondering is what you think about General Abazaid. Is he well-informed? How well compared to you? Can I trust that he understands what is going on and that he is developing appropriate measures to deal with it? Do you understand it all better than he does? And can you help me see why I should trust you instead?
I have been thinking that the thing we are losing is the propaganda war for our own people's confidence and support for doing what is necessary to win. It seems you want to tell me that its not propaganda, its true. That our ambassador and our military over there are failures and what they are doing is inevitably causing our defeat. Abazaid says he believes in it and wants to keep it up. You say it is clear to everybody with a brain that that is doomed. So can you set me straight by answering the above questions?
John E.
Try changing 'two years ago' to 'four years ago' in your misapplication of the Reagan test. The answers will be radically different.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community