Iraq Study Group report: so, what else is new?
I’m a bit underwhelmed by the Iraq Study Group report “The Way Forward: A New Approach” (see this and this). It reminds me of the usual recommendations by committee; you’re familiar with the genre, I’m sure.
“New approach?” Hardly.
I haven’t had time to read the full text, but the reports on the report are in line with the leaks on the report we’d gotten prior to the its official debut. The main recommendation seems to be more or less what the Administration has been saying all along–the goal is Iraqization, without an exact timetable. This is combined with the following “new” ideas, leaked prior to the issuance of the report: a temporary upsurge in troop involvement to get over the hump of Iraqization, talks with Iran and Syria (I’ve written about that idea before, here), and a new commitment to the old failed “peace process” approach to Israel/Palestine. No magic wands, nor were any expected.
I’m a bit perplexed by all the attention paid to the report prior to its release, and even now. Something like this–a public document about future military strategy–needs to be vague and general even if it does contain new and important information. At least, it should be that way if any of its proposals have any chance of being effective. Telegraphing exactly what we plan to do in great detail, and beaming it around the world for the enemy to see, would be counterproductive, to say the least. But many in this country and the MSM, although professing to be citizens of the world, act as though the only important thing is domestic political infighting, and a short-sighted “gotcha!” game.
And, of course, in line with this, some of the MSM articles on the subject (example here) emphasize the Group’s criticisms of the current approach. Imagine if, in the middle of the gloomiest days of the Civil War for the North, or World War II for the Allies (and they were pretty much all gloomy for the first couple of years), our own media had emphasized the demoralization of our forces, or the pessimism of our own people. But I digress…
I’m glad and not at all surprised at the seemingly general and rather bland nature of the recommendations. It’s really only the details of how Iraqization and the subsequent slow withdrawal of US troops will be carried out that matter on the end; all the rest is bluster.
However, bluster can be harmful, and I’m with Robert Kagan and William Kristol (oh yes, we evil scheming neocons stick together!) on the negative results that have already ensued from all the jaw-jaw about the Iraq Study Group, to wit:
It’s not as if the Baker commission has accomplished nothing, however. Although its recommendations will have no effect on American policy going forward, they have already had a very damaging effect throughout the world, and especially in the Middle East and in Iraq. For the Iraq Study Group, aided by supportive American media, has successfully conveyed the impression to everyone at home and abroad that the United States is about to withdraw from Iraq. This has weakened American allies and strengthened American enemies. It has exacerbated the problems in Iraq, as all the various factions in that country begin to prepare for the “inevitable” American retreat. Now it will require enormous efforts by the president and his advisers to dispel the disastrous impression that the Baker commission has quite deliberately created and will continue to foster in the weeks ahead. At home and abroad, people have been led to believe that Jim Baker and not the president was going to call the shots in Iraq from now on.
As yes, outside of the echo chamber that is Congress and the MSM the news gets around, and it has consequences. But we needn’t worry too much about any of those: we can always talk with the enemy about them.
[NOTE: re Iraqization vs Vietnamization, you might want to review this.]
Where’s my post?
Oh, Okay, my bad: I posted to the wrong thread. LOL! Anyway, if you decide (Neo) that I am too fractious just invite me to leave. I’ll go.
***
There’s no doubt in my mind that this Baker Report (hereinafter, ISG) is meant to function as a from-on-high figleaf to facilitate troop withdrawals and re-deployments.
I say this because the text of the report itself makes it clear that the problems in both Iraq (and the Israeli-Pali conflict) are not military problems that can be solved with force, but rather political problems that have to be solved by negotiation and various carrot-stick routines. Furthermore the report also makes it clear that the US cannot amp up its force presence because it does not have the forces to do so.
Gradual retreat is therefore the implied, if unspoken, conclusion of the ISG.
Some of the recommendations will never take place. For example, it suggests that Syria might be talked into going along, and ceasing support for Hezbollah, and stopping the transit of its borders, and make peace with Israel, in return for the Golan Heights. But Israel will never give up the Golan Heights, it’s the means whereby they control the runoff into Lake Tiberias, and they need that water.
I just heard Senator Biden’s response to the report, which was something to the effect of, “they’re crazy if they think we can resolve this through a military strategy without seeking a political solution in Iraq.” Okay, that’s not an exact quote, but he made a similar statement earlier, to wit:
“I’m concerned the Iraq Study Group may miss the most important point: the need for a strategy to build a sustainable political settlement in Iraq. Bringing the neighbors in and starting to get our troops out are necessary, but not sufficient. We need to give each of Iraq’s major groups a way to pursue their interests peacefully. It would be a fatal mistake to believe we can do that solely by building up a strong central government. That policy has been tried and it has failed because there is no trust within the government, no trust of the government by the people and no capacity on the part of the government to deliver benefits to Iraqis.
“The best way to get a sustainable political settlement is through federalism: maintaining a unified Iraq, but decentralizing the country and giving its groups breathing room in their own regions. A central government would still be responsible for the distribution of oil and border security. We would get Sunni buy-in by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of the oil revenues and we’d bring the neighbors in to support the political settlement. If we do all these things, we can withdraw most of our troops from Iraq by the end of 2007, with a residual force to focus on counter-terrorism. And we can achieve the two objectives most Americans share: to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.”
Right on Joe. It seems as if the commission’s only purpose was to figure out the quickest way out, without any regard for the political considerations that led us to war in the first place. The political situation in Iraq is far more important than just getting out.
It’s worse than that:
The Baker Plan includes ‘Palestinian Right of Return’ (the actual phrase) and proposes a meeting with Iran and Syria in Madrid to discuss carving up Israel.
The Plan proposes feeding Israel to the Palestinians in hope that Iran eats up last.
“We would get Sunni buy in by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of the oil revenues”. A more crass way to put this is “pay them to participate in this ‘democracy’.” Will the US arm and train them “proportianlly” as well?
In terms of grand strategy, this is a total refutation of neo-conservative ideology and a return to realism.
The reference to “Right of Return” was just a bone thrown to the Palis to get them to cooperate, as well as a pointed reminder to Israel to get it together. The report also contains the following:
“SeveralIraqi, U.S., and international officials commented to us thatIraqi opposition to the United States—and support for Sadr—
spiked in the aftermath of Israel’s bombing campaign in
Lebanon.”
Of course, Israel had no choice to respond to the rocket attacks. But if the above is true, the failure of Israel-Palestine accords is becoming a strategic liability for us.
Where’s my post?
Steve | 12.06.06 – 3:07 pm | #
Where’s my beef?
Justa: I am trying to be polite. And fair. Frankly, I think the Israelis should be talking to Hamas, as well.
The report also states, “No US President will ever abandon Israel.” That is a sentiment I agree with.
And Israel has a right to self-defense so I made no complaint about the bombings this summer or even the construction of the Wall.
However, it’s a simple fact that Israel has NEVER agreed to forsake the large settlement blocks in the North, South, or East of Jerusalem, nor have they EVER agreed to give up the Jordan river valley. That means that the only state the Palis will ever get will consist of a few enclaves around Nablus, Ramallah, Hebron, and Jericho, plus Gaza. IOW, pretty much what they have today.
These enclaves are not and will not be contiguous, which means of course lengthy, and time consuming, checkpoints. The Palis cannot, and will not be able to build anything without Israeli permits, and they cannot even today drill wells on their own property. Unfortunately, I don’t see how anyone in their right mind can talk about making a “viable Palestinian state” out of that.
The current situation has 3-4 million (depending on whose numbers you believe) Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, completely surrounded by Israeli settlements, the Wall, and the IDF. Compared to Israelis, they live in severe poverty, with incomes 1/10th or even less compared to their Israeli neighbors, and, because they are surrounded, and because of building and water restrictions, they have no avenues for positive improvement.
Failure to work out a settlement so that the Palestinians can thrive is hurting Israel. Recognition of that is dawning even to the Israelis (not so much to its supporters here.) If it is also hurting the US efforts, it is then doubly bad.
Jim Baker (may his name be blotted out) rears its ugly head again with his strategy for everything. Kill two birds with one stone by selling out Israel so that Syria will be our friend and his masters the Sa’uds will be rid of the odious Jews.
Steve — wrong again. The Palis are doing precisely what they want to. They love their misery and no one can take it away from them. They voted for it.Now let them enjoy it.
Steve — wrong again. The Palis are doing precisely what they want to. They love their misery and no one can take it away from them. They voted for it.Now let them enjoy it.
There’s an element of sadism and collective punishment in that comment that I would not want ascribed to me. Moreover, vindictiveness is not a good political strategy, it is however a good way to make enemies and lose friends.
At this point Israel does not have an unlimited timeline to make an accomodation with the Palestinians. It’s not just that many people, including many Jews, are getting tired of the current impasse, where the Palis are stuck and the Israelis are walling themselves in. It’s also that Israelis are becoming unwilling to endorse it, to fight for it, or die for it. And those young Israelis, in my experience, tend to vote with their feet.
The Israeli Jews aren’t going anywhere, and neither are the Palestinian Arabs. Either both parties actively engage the other, or the Israelis, as the stronger party, will end up bearing the responsbility for the Palestinians, as some feel they already do. At that point basic Jewish conceptions of fairness and social justice come into play, spelling the end to the Jewish state qua Jewish state. If I were interested in maintaining a state that expresses the Jewish spirit, its ideals, and its character, I’d get busy trying to fix this.
Punitive vindictiveness has worked wonders to discipline the human race. The only question is, who were the ones doing the disciplining and who were the ones being disciplined.
Israel is pathetically weak compared to the Palestinians. Israel has no fire or rage, without them, they cannot win wars.
Troutsky wrote:
“We would get Sunni buy in by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of the oil revenues”. A more crass way to put this is “pay them to participate in this ‘democracy’.” Will the US arm and train them “proportianlly” as well?
In terms of grand strategy, this is a total refutation of neo-conservative ideology and a return to realism.
I agree with you in general, it really bugs me that we are back to realpolitik – the philoshpy of appeasing dictators to get “stability”. Ugh, isn’t that what got us into this mess? However, unless I am misreading Biden (entirely possible), I think the point is that we need to find a way to make democracy workable in Iraq, and the only way to do this may be to create three separate democracies, each with access to the oil.
Looking at what is currently happening, it seems that the Iraqis hate and distrust each other too deeply to be willing to come together as one, centralized democracy. I think that just training their troops and then pulling out will only leave the field open to the next strong man. This time with better trained troops.
In fact, it almost seems to me that this is the plan. Telling the Iraqi’s “we’re leaving, you gotta handle this yourselves, here’s some weaponry and military training” is a tacit signal to the Iraqi government to crack down on insurgencies with an iron fist.
Well I, for one, am still a neo-conservative. I don’t like and do not want a return to propping up dictators just to make it easier for us. And I haven’t given up on democracy in Iraq. It still seems to me that the creation of a stable democracy, however long and difficult a job it may be, is still job number one in Iraq, and if “paying off the Sunnis” is the only way to accomplish that, so be it. It’s better than paying off another Saddam.
As for the Israel-Palestinian portion of report on Iraq…… aaaaarrrrghh!!
When are we in the west going to stop buying the bullshit propaganda of tyrannical Islamist regimes! The Isreali-Palestinian conflict affects Israel and Palestine (and their immediate neighbors to a certain extent.) It is NOT and Iraqi problem! Nor an Iranian, Saudi, Kuwaiti, Sudanese, Libyan, etc. problem. To decide that resolving this issue is a precursor to resolving the internal problems of any other nation is sheer lunacy!
Wake up people! We have absolutely no obligation to enforce or even support the desire of Islamist regimes for hegemony over the ‘holy land’. If anything, if we are serious about combating the threat of radical Islamic terrorism and violent Jihad, the last thing we need to be doing is yielding to such demands.
I mean, think about it. If you are concerned about the welfare of Palestinians, obviously this is a central issue, but when you start talking about this being a central issue for Iraqis, what are you really saying? They don’t live there, they are not a major center for Palestinian refugees, so what, exactly, is their connection to the issue? Only this: that it is a rallying cry for Jihadis, who are also actively engaged in undermining any chance for democracy in Iraq. So basically Baker is saying that we need to support Jihadist propaganda.
Protest at the cruelties of war all you want. Might as well dance in the thunderstorm to stop it.
If some nation is bent on suicide, nothing in universe can save it from utmost disaster. Palis destroyed Israeli built greenhouses bought for them by Bill Gates. They could feed a half of Gaza population, but Palis prefer to use this area as a launching pad for Qassam rockets. In Syria they tried to assassinate Hafes Assad; in Jordan – to murder King Husseyn, in Lebanon several times committed massacre in Christian towns, in Kuwait tortured and murdered local Arabs, being Saddam’s favorite butchers. They are cruel not only to Jews, but to every other Arab nation as well, and had to pay for it dearly. Really, the whole Arab world scorns them in spite of all it’s rhetoric. As some Israeli diplomat in UN noted 25 years ago, “they never miss the opportunity to miss the opportunity”. There is a promise in Bible that when Messianic Age comes, “I will wipe Amalek from Universe completely”. There is not specified which exactly people Amalek designates, and scholars up today discuss it; it is only known that this people were murderous Jews-haters during Exodus. But during last thirty years I became more and more convinced that Palis, indeed, are the said Amalek whom God promised to wipe out from the face of the Earth. It is interesting to muse, how He is going to do this? Tsunami in Mediterranean, striking at Gasa strip? Or some lethal epidemic, from which the Wall will save Israel? In this case, Sharon’s plan of Gaza withdrawal and building the Wall makes sense.
Sergys reliance on biblical prophesy (even if distorted) explains a lot. Jen ,even though the solidarity between Palestinians and other Arabs is often tenuous and strained, one thing that unites them is disgust at the support role the US plays for Israel despite it’s disregard for international law (the UN resolution referred to by Baker-Hamilton).What Arabs logically see as Western hegemony over Middle East, after all, development and military aid to Israel is 2 to 5 billion yearly even though they have the most advanced military and developed economy in the region. The US turns a blind eye to Israels nuclear arsenal.Bases in Kuwait and elsewhere, building a monster base in Iraq, etc..Without the imagination to see this through an Arab perspective , you are locked into denial of objective conditions.
Oops ,I forgot. You guys don’t do international law or UN resolutions so that won’t have much bearing.
What sense does it make to see anything trough the eyes of the most obsolete and benighted culture on the Earth? We already knew their aspirations and goals, directly from them. They are both utopian and destructive, so there is no problem of understanding them. The real problem is how to stop them.
Who really have any fear of Israel nukes? Its defensive aim is quite clear. Even using conventional arms, Israel can raze to the ground any ME country, but never used these forces to their full capacity. If you do not plan to attack Israel first, you have no reason to fear Israel would try it on you. But if you do plan to destroy Israel, this is completely different story…
Does anyone else believe this was about Oil? So let’s just secure the southern part of the country with the oil and the ports to ship it(pump it all out ourselves) and let the Arab fools chase themselves about the desert as they have for thousands of years. We won and the reward for knocking out Hussein is the oil, but there is no way to police a society that tolerates lawlessness and rewards suicide. Not all societies want or need Democracy and Iraq needs a strong totalitarian leader to keep all these factions in line. We can send some of the oil money back if, and when, there is stability. No more PC, no more Mr. Nice Guy. Take the oil and get out! Xk