Iraq Study Group verdict

spike

spike

New Member
President Bush's dreams of a stable, democratic Iraq have been ailing for a long time.


The study group tried to point a way forward for US Iraq policy
On Wednesday, James Baker and the Iraq Study Group presided over their demise.

Even the report's title, "The Way Forward - A New Approach", implied the failure of America's project in Iraq.

Its opening words have an air of despondency: "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating."

Mr Baker's evaluation is harsh, and he offers no hope of radical renewal.

His report appears geared to averting catastrophe, but even then he says no path can guarantee success.

The report has three main thrusts: a "new diplomatic offensive", which would draw Iraq's neighbours, including Iran and Syria, in to the search for stability in Iraq; a rethinking of America's military priorities; and the renewal of a sense of political purpose among Americans.

Eye-catching, but vague

The two recommendations out of 79 which will attract most attention in America are these: the diplomatic engagement of Iran and Syria - despite the obvious difficulties in doing so - and the handing over of responsibility for security in Iraq to Iraqi forces by the end of next year.

US combat forces, the report says, could start to withdraw in early 2008.


There is an implied threat to leave Iraq to sort itself out
Yet the recommendations appear at times to be vague.

They speak of building "international consensus" and "engaging Iran and Syria constructively" but provide few specifics as to how other countries might be induced to co-operate on Iraq.

The text speaks airily of considering "incentives and disincentives" to gain commitment from Syria and Iran.

For Iraq itself, a threat hangs in the air.

If the government of Nouri Maliki fails to reach demanding milestones in politics and security, the United States, says the report, should reduce economic and security assistance.

The Study Group is threatening to weaken a weak government

Anthony Cordesman, CSIS
Yet there is little discussion of the ramifications that might follow such a move.

Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in early reaction, was scathing.

"Simply calling for a weak and divided Iraqi government to act in the face of all the forces tearing Iraq apart is almost feckless," he wrote.

"The Study Group is threatening to weaken a weak government."

Much of the report's content echoes the discussion among American strategists and military thinkers that has been taking place for the past year.

Few of its ideas - such as increasing the number of US military advisers in the Iraqi armed forces - are original.

Pressure on Bush

But their articulation in such a high-profile, feverishly anticipated fashion places great pressure on the Bush administration to rethink Iraq policy.


Mr Bush thanked the authors - but will he listen to them?
For his part, the president, sources close to the administration say, does not want to be captive to the recommendations laid out by Mr Baker and his cohort. The Iraq Study Group is a creation of Congress, not of the president himself.

So the president will point to his own policy review, which is being carried out by the National Security Council, and to another in the Pentagon as alternative sources of advice.

The role of the new secretary of defence, Robert Gates, will also be crucial in forming Mr Bush's thinking on any change of direction in Iraq.

In all, the report will be central to the creation of a new political atmosphere in America - helping to define the debate and speeding up the process of finding a new future for Iraq policy.

But what impact its recommendations might have on the ground in Iraq is much less certain.

One intelligence official said recently: "Whichever way they turn now in Iraq, policy doesn't come out right."
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6215636.stm
 
Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
The Iraq Study Group, headed by James Baker, head of the law firn that represents Saudia Arabia. Yep, no agenda there.
 
spike

spike

New Member
What's Saudi Arabia have to do with it? Bush and Cheney are pretty friendly with the Saudis too.

bush_kiss.jpg


bush_abdullah.jpg


bush_saudi7.jpg


http://www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm
 
chcr

chcr

Too cute for words
SouthernN'Proud said:
Step One of the New regeime. Get used to this kinda stuff y'all...it's what you voted in.
Click to expand...

This one started long before the last election (In March in fact, if memory serves). It has nothing to do with said election. In fact, this study group is clearly trying to dig the administrations ass out of what is clearly an unmitigated disaster. As you'll find out in the coming months though, it's far too late.
 
Gato_Solo

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
chcr said:
This one started long before the last election (In March in fact, if memory serves). It has nothing to do with said election. In fact, this study group is clearly trying to dig the administrations ass out of what is clearly an unmitigated disaster. As you'll find out in the coming months though, it's far too late.
Click to expand...

Its not as big a disaster as some would like you to believe. Double the amount of troops to secure the borders, and most of this would dry up within a year. Nobody wants to commit more troops, so this is what you get. One group trying to do this 'on the cheap', and the other trying to undermine the efforts of the troops they're supposed to be supporting through the media, and thats where you get your disaster.
 
chcr

chcr

Too cute for words
Gato_Solo said:
Its not as big a disaster as some would like you to believe. Double the amount of troops to secure the borders, and most of this would dry up within a year. Nobody wants to commit more troops, so this is what you get. One group trying to do this 'on the cheap', and the other trying to undermine the efforts of the troops they're supposed to be supporting through the media, and thats where you get your disaster.
Click to expand...

"On the cheap" being a very relative term where the gubmint is involved, but you're largely right. At this point there won't be more troops and the administration understands that anything it does will be viewed as wrong so they keep doing what they've been doing in the mistaken (IMO, of course) hope that it will all work out in the end. It was a recipe for disaster from the beginning.
 
Gato_Solo

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
chcr said:
"On the cheap" being a very relative term where the gubmint is involved, but you're largely right. At this point there won't be more troops and the administration understands that anything it does will be viewed as wrong so they keep doing what they've been doing in the mistaken (IMO, of course) hope that it will all work out in the end. It was a recipe for disaster from the beginning.
Click to expand...

No life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness is possible when Congress is in session...

The only way to even get this debacle started was to assure those holding the purse strings that this would be an inexpensive operation. Had they known how much this was going to actually cost, they might've balked, so now my life, and the lives of other military members, are placed in jeopardy because there's too much blame and not enough responsibility...then the public decides to change the flavor of government to the professionals of 'cut and run'. Nothing like showing fear to embolden your enemies...:rolleyes:
 
Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Bush has had 5 years of leftists drivel, perpetuated by a leftist media, hammering incessantly in every imagineable venue...including the halls of Congress where the authority originated. The American people, tiring of the constatnt barrage of mis-information, decided to give the enemy within a chance to change things.

Top that off with Bush foolishly hiring a former Sec'y of State to head up yet another bipartisan (God, I hate that word) commission to see what can be done to stop the violence. The commission came to similar commissions of the past...all of which boil down to DON'T PISS OFF OUR ENEMY.

Instead of killing Mutaq & friends, we're now supposed to talk to Syria & Iran, the main suppliers of enemy combatants.

Nice plan.

NOW it looks more & more like Vietnam. How can the worlds strongest & best equipped military be defeated? By using the left in the USA. Nice going libs.
 
spike

spike

New Member
Gonz said:
The American people, tiring of the constatnt barrage of mis-information
Click to expand...

Yes, they're tired of the misinformation from the Bush administration and the right wing media.

Top that off with Bush foolishly hiring a former Sec'y of State to head up yet another bipartisan (God, I hate that word) commission to see what can be done to stop the violence. The commission came to similar commissions of the past...all of which boil down to DON'T PISS OFF OUR ENEMY.
Click to expand...

Hiring a new right wing Secratary of Defense and a right wing led study group they came to a conclusion the rest of America has known for some time-> The conservatives have ceated such an inneffective mess that it's nigh near impossible to salvage this in any positive way.

Instead of killing Mutaq & friends, we're now supposed to talk to Syria & Iran, the main suppliers of enemy combatants.
Click to expand...

Instead of killing Iraqis and US servicemen senslessly they suggest doing something intelligent.



NOW it looks more & more like Vietnam. How can the worlds strongest & best equipped military be defeated? By using the left in the USA. Nice going libs.
Click to expand...

You've been comparing it to Vietnam for quite some time. How can the US military be defeated? With right wing mis-management like we've had this whole time. Nice going Cons!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top