The ISG and the USIP: who are these people and why are they saying all these things?
In her latest vlog, the inimitable Pamela of Atlas Shrugs asks the following pertinent question about ISG head James Baker, “Who died and made him king?”
Well, I think I can offer a stab at an answer. Who died? The Republican Party in the 2006 election (I know, I know, they didn’t die. But they did receive a blow). Who made Baker king? The MSM.
My guess is that had the Republicans won the 2006 elections, we wouldn’t have heard much about the ISG recommendations, which have been hyped to the nth degree by the media only since those elections.
The ISG was appointed back in March. Here is its history. It was formed at the suggestion of Congressman Frank Wolf as a bipartisan panel to look at the situation in Iraq with fresh eyes. The panel was affiliated with an entity called the United States Institute of Peace:
The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan, national institution established and funded by Congress. Its mission is to help:
* Prevent and resolve violent international conflicts
* Promote post-conflict stability and democratic transformations
* Increase peacebuilding capacity, tools, and intellectual capital worldwide
In other words, from the start, the ISG was under the aegis of a group dedicated to finding diplomatic solutions rather than to make military suggestions (except, perhaps, in the area of using armed forces as peacekeepers). The USIP was a “facilitating organization” to the Group, meaning:
As facilitator, USIP maintains an in-house Iraq expert committee that supports the ISG principals in their work. USIP has assisted the group and its members by convening expert working groups, writing briefing papers, providing analysis and coordinating meetings of the ISG.
The two heads of the ISG, Baker and Hamilton, were chosen by:
mutual agreement among the Congressional organizers, USIP, and the other supporting organizations. After being named co-chairs, Baker and Hamilton selected the remaining group members in consultation with USIP and the other supporting organizations.
So it was Congress and the USIP who appointed the heads of the ISG, who then appointed everyone else, with the USIP heavily involved. And once you read the goals of the USIP, it becomes crystal clear why the rather deranged suggestion to talk to Iran and Syria, and to resolve the Palestinian/Israeli situation through revival of the DOA “peace process” there, are part and parcel of the ISG recommendations.
I’m sure the USIP is composed of a bunch of nice people dedicated to the pursuit of peace, a laudable cause. And I would imagine that somewhere, somehow, in the right circumstances, they do some fine work–perhaps, for example, in rebuilding places where the fighting parties are exhausted and wanting reconciliation (some of the nations of Africa, for example). Here are more of the USIP’s activities:
* Providing on-the-ground operational support in zones of conflict, most recently in Afghanistan, the Balkans, Colombia, Indonesia, Iraq, the Palestinian Territories, Liberia, Nigeria, Philippines, Rwanda, and Sudan. Specific work performed by Institute staff and grantees includes:
o Building leadership capacity through training and workshops
o Facilitating dialogue among parties in conflict
o Identifying and disseminating best practices in conflict management
o Sponsoring leadership summits and strategic conferences
o Promoting the rule of law
o Developing educational and teacher training materials
o Helping build civil society institutions
o Sponsoring a wide range of countrywide working groups (e.g., Afghanistan, Haiti, Iraq, Korea, Sudan)
o Educating the public through informative events, documentary films, radio programs, and an array of other outreach activities
Despite the heavy hand of the USIP and their bias for the talking cure (and I’m not referring to psychotherapy), the ISG still might have been a more worthwhile and balanced endeavor had its members consisted of people with a great deal of expertise on the subject of Iraq, foreign affairs, and military matters.
Who are the members of the ISG? Most articles focus on Baker and Hamilton, the heads, but there are ten members. There are five Democrats and five Republicans, no surprise, since the panel was meant to be bipartisan. Let’s take a brief look:
(1) James A. Baker, age 76, Republican, Secretary of State under the first Bush
(2) Lee Hamilton, age 75, Democrat, vice-chair of 9/11 Commission, ex-Representative from Indiana with experience on foreign affairs and intelligence committees
(3) Lawrence Eagleburger, age 76, Republican, Secretary of State under the first Bush
(4) Vernon Jordan, age 71, Democrat, businessman, civil rights lawyer and advisor/buddy to Clinton
(5) Edwin Meese III, age 75, Republican, Attorney General under Reagan (controversial involvement in Iran-Contra)
(6) Sandra Day O’Connor, age 76, Republican, lawyer and Supreme Court Justice
(7) Leon Panetta, age 68, Democrat, Congressman (budget, civil rights, health, and environmental issues), Clinton’s Chief of Staff
(8) William Perry, age 79, Democrat, Secretary of Defense under Clinton
(9) Chuck Robb, age 67, Democrat, former Marine, ex-governor of Virginia, Senator, Chair of Iraq Intelligence Commission (only member of ISG to venture outside “green zone” in trip to Iraq)
(10) Allen K. Simpson, age 75, Republican, Senator, chair of Veterans’ Affairs Committee
One thing that leaps out–and which others have commented on–is that as a whole it’s a rather geriatric bunch. This certainly doesn’t invalidate the opinions of the members, but it leads us to a presumption that they’re not exactly cutting edge. Foreign affairs are represented, in the sense of the State Department (to be extremely specific, the State Department under the first President Bush): Baker and Eagleburger were both Secretary of State under Bush I. Hamilton has relevant Congressional experience; Perry is the only person with a Defense background (under Clinton, under whom he oversaw the post-Cold War reduction of the armed forces), and Robb has both military and intelligence experience.
But fully five of the Group’s members (that’s half) have little or in most cases no experience at all–not just of Iraq or military matters, but of foreign affairs in general. To me, this is astounding.
Baker and Hamilton picked the members of the group. I don’t know whether these were their first picks or not, or how much oversight there was, and if so, by whom. At the time the selection was made, I doubt they realized what scrutiny the results would come under, due to the election.
But these picks are beyond my understanding. If you follow the links and read the biographies, you’ll see that Jordan, O’Connor, Meese, Panetta, and probably Simpson (who seems to have a bit of experience with veteran affairs, which is probably not all that relevant to policy in Iraq) have no experience whatsoever in the relevant fields. None. Period.
This is truly hard to fathom. I understand bipartisanship. I understand that these aren’t stupid people; they are all intelligent and accomplished, in their own ways. But so are many of us, and we’re not on the ISG.
Surely these are not the most qualified people for this particular task. Surely they are not even close. Surely many of them are not qualified at all. And surely the influence of the USIP skewed the results, especially when dealing with minds that may have been somewhat of a tabula rasa on the topic.
[ADDENDUM: Shrinkwrapped diagnoses the ISG.]
Sorry, but I’m afraid I found the linked piece to be just an illustration of why we don’t want military people making international policy — he’s so focused on the military problems in this one country that he misses the larger point altogether. A defect that he at least shares with the ISG, by the way.
Civil wars have a way of stopping themselves, one way or another, provided they’re not sustained by outside agents — meaning that we should focus our efforts on halting that external support for the insurgents by whatever means are necessary. After which we can again focus on helping the Iraqis build themselves a government that’s of, by, and for Iraqis.
But so are many of us, and we’re not on the ISG.
I want an ISG composed of the Sanity Squad. Then we’ll get somewhere.
Here’s a funny view on things, Neo.
link
The ISG is an echo chamber and not a pleasant one at that… DiplomoFinanceRealism – aimed to get economic stability at any cost to human liberty and long-term national and strategic security. Such swell folks.
I read a few posts at her blog, a long time ago. (to me anyways). She is always… special, you know.
Btw, Baker looks like Freddy if you look at the picture.
All Bush needs to know is that the power of America is there for the President to draw upon. He can do so, by killing 50% of the tangos at GitMo. More and more death, more and more executions, Bush, will give you more and more political power and support. This has always been true. At least for the just.
There is a certain pleasure seeing the guilty and the evil, hanging from a tree with a look of astonished agony on their faces. Power is the ability to harness the constructive and destructive energies of the human being. Bush has 300 million human beings to draw upon. And they are even 300 million Americans. Besides, in an economic sense, one man from America is worth 30 men in China. That’s a lot of power to draw upon. Bush can run this country totally ignoring Congress & SC and vetoing everything, so long as he has popular support and control over the military. The Congress would have no choice but to accede to his wishes at the risk of losing their seats due to Bush’s vetoes. There are plenty of oil companies to “nationalize”, take a pick from our enemies in Mid East. Citco for example, owned by Chavez. Nationalize it, use it to fund the military, then veto Congress and get them in line.
All of this power is at the tips of the President’s finger. Only Bush’s compassion and desire for “diplomacy” and “unity” stands in the way of America’s victory. The Leftwards are bare minor obstacles at best compared to the tidal wave of true power.
Most of the ISG members appear to be people who have spent their professional lives dealing with *words*. The problem with this is that such people tend to assume that all problems can be resolved with the right verbal forumulation. “If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”
So Pete, what do you recommend?
After all, since you ruined the grading curve at your university you are obviously a lot smarter than the rest of us mere peons.
So what is your solution, O Maginificent One?
Make that “Magnificent” instead of “Maginificent”.
Yak–a reminder, it’s not wise to bait known trolls.
IF GWBush’s theme song is “Hail To The Chief”, then the ISG’s tune might well be: “Old Rockin’ Chair’s Got Me.”.
What sports team were the “Over The Hill Gang”? These guys and gal are not even that young.
Old and tired, one foot in the grave. And willing to drag you down with them…
“I’m sure the USIP is composed of a bunch of nice people dedicated to the pursuit of peace, a laudable cause.”
What is the road to Hell paved with? Hint: not yellow bricks.
I think that the members of this commission were better qualified for the job than I am or most of the people attacking the report. The ISG report is a bitter pill to swallow.
A bitter pill to swallow would be that pollonium tablet. This Baker commission is some kind of fake but accurate report.
“When you have a hammer, everything’s a nail.” That seems to be the modus operandi of this group.
I think we need a new generation to fight this war. There is now someone somewhere who will be the new Churchill. Well, hopefully.
Churchill… Say, wasn’t Churchill an old man, too… like, well, Baker?
Actually, these old gasbags can be useful to the cause. A wiser man than Bush would send them forth with blessings and fanfares to all the nations to jabber on and on, while the real work is made ready. This country is so rich in snakeoil peddlers; the tragedy is that nobody drinks it except us.
Anti-Americanism has its headquarters in Hollywood. The whole world gets their view of Americans from Hollywood. Even the anti-American media in Europe, they get their news, views, and marching orders from Hollywood.
The only thing I regret is that Neo doesn’t have any holiday elf-satan (i mean santa) helpers to do her deletion for her.
Don’t worry Neo. After all, you could be in this situation.
Shalk aqbouk quagmire. Link
Why Play a Weak Hand?
December 10, 2006
The New York Times
Jose Joffe
James Baker is a consummate diplomatist; recall how he rounded up dozens of allies in the first war against Saddam Hussein. But his panel’s suggestion to “engage” Iran and Syria to extricate the United States from the current Iraqi morass reflects a grievous misreading of those nations’ ambitions and America’s options.
Rule No. 1: Never negotiate from weakness, unless you intend to capitulate. Back in April 2003, Iran was quaking, and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad was a living corpse. Now, both are on a roll while the Bush administration is looking at a triple rout: in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Congress. So the mightiest nation on earth has no sticks — be it a doubling of the troops in Iraq or a strike against Iran’s nuclear installations.
What about carrots? Washington can hold out only two deals that might elicit cooperation on Iraq. One is to accept precisely what America has fought for decades: Damascus’s rule over that part of “Greater Syria” we call Lebanon. As for Tehran, the price would be higher still: a tacit “yes” to the bomb, and Iran’s hegemony over much of the Middle East. If that is the price of engagement, Washington might just as well skip the tedium of talking and disengage from the world’s most critical strategic arena here and now.
neo believes in rule through “experts”, some sort of credentialled class who we would invest with power. Interesting concept.She also seems to be assuming the ISG didn’t consult with a huge assortment of sources,”experts” in all the various fields. Her sources are such non-partisan experts as William Kristol.
Pete: Boo-Hoo. End of comment.
Trotsky:
These WERE the experts, at least in their own eyes. I doubt that they consulted anyone else. If they had, they would have mentioned them to avoid any later criticism.
When the report goes wrong, always have an outside source mentioned in the text to unload the blame upon. Well known trick in bizness and (gasp) academia.
I’ve used it myself (heh) when writing a proposal that I didn’t think would work. You could always find a sap in the sales department willing to make an extravagant claim on sales projections. When the product lays an egg (you can sense this), sluff the blame(s) off onto your unsuspecting mark.
He can’t do much since you have him quoted on an “Official Confidential” document. Works like a charm.
This indeed may be what GWBush is doing: getting the dinosaurs to take one last chance to make fools of themselves.
Seems to be working…
By the way:
“United States Institute for Peace”.
Almost sounds like a vintage 1930s front for the Communist Party, USA.
Strike the “Almost sounds like…”; put in its place “Sounds like…” now that I proof read this post.
“La plus change, le meme chose!”
“The more things change, the more they remain the same.”
Nice to know…
I wouldn’t buy the second hand defribulator from that group. It’s probably pretty worn out!
“But fully five of the Group’s members (that’s half) have little or in most cases no experience at all–not just of Iraq or military matters, but of foreign affairs in general. To me, this is astounding.”-Neo
Considering how the CPA was staffed and run, what is astounding is that you are astounded.
What was George Bush’s credentials in foreign policy.
You have got to be one of the least self-aware bloggers on the internet Neo. Which is astounding in it’s own right.
If this group had come up with a different answer, or rather simply blindly stumbled onto the right answer, I am certain liberals would be making the same arguments against the group that we are. They are simply looking for political cover to come to the conclusion they’ve been wanting to come to for some time.
I would add that if a respectable panel of actual foreign policy experts, perhaps even an actual general or two had come to the conclusion that we need to get out, the Right would at least take pause and respect that. Or similarly if Jimmy Carter came to the conclusion that we should maintain our current course, we would favor immediate withdrawal, no questions asked.
Roger:
Churchill was an old man of 90 when he died. However he did have some relevant experience before becoming old.
Graduate of Sandhurst Military Academy; active service in the Sudan, India, Africa (Boer War), and the Western Front (WWI).
AS a politician he was a Member of parliament, First Lord of the Admiralty (twice), Prime Minister (twice), including during all of WWII, and Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Accomplished auther – Nobel Prize for literature.*
Author Ben Macintyre noted Churchill’s views on Islam in a July 23, 2005 article in Timesonline**
“Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith,” he wrote after going into battle himself against the Dervishes, the followers of the Mahdi, the self-proclaimed prophet of Islam who had launched a mass rebellion to drive the infidels out of Egypt. Churchill writes as an enthusiastic imperialist, comparing the “fanatical frenzy” of the Mahdi’s followers to rabid dogs. But his analysis is more nuanced than the language suggests. He understood that extremism flourished amid the “fearful fatalistic apathy” in the Muslim world — precisely the apathy that Britain’s Muslim communities must now urgently combat. Rather than condemn the Dervishes as mere lunatics (as many of his contemporaries did), he sought to understand their suicidal bravery through the “mighty stimulus of fanaticism”.
*http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=638)
**http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1068-1704794,00.html
In no way President is obliged to follow any advice from any group of experts. Responsibility burden still is on him, so he can not hide behind their backs. He can simply throw this report out of the window. What he, it seems, is going to do.
Let’s look at this strategically and see how the ISG addressed the strategic goals of the GWOT.
US Strategic Goals: Defeat Al-Quida and establish conditions to prevent further attacks on the US.
1. Defeat Al Quida in Afghanistan by overthrowing the Taliban and destroying their bases.
2. Overthrow Saddam Hussein and eliminate terrorist safe havens in Iraq; win the low intesity war fought against US since 1998.
3. Defeat Al Quida globally by working with allies to roll up Islamic terrorist cells.
4. Implement long-term solution by addressing root causes of conflict. Establish democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq and later spread freedom and economic prosperity throughout the Middle East.
Al Quida Strategic Goals
1. Stay alive.
2. Remove US power from the Middle East: sets conditions for goals 3 & 4.
3. Overthrow existing Sunni-led Arab governments
4. Establish a totalitarian Islamic Caliphate to retake the Middle East, Balkans, and Spain.
Saddam’s Strategic Goals
1. Stay in power.
2. Remove US power from the Middle East: sets conditions for goal 3.
3. Overthrow neighbors to establish a Nazi-inspired Sunni Baathist totalitarian empire.
Ahmadinejad’s/Iranian Strategic Goals
1. Stay in power.
2. Remove US power from the Middle East: sets conditions for goals 3 & 4.
3. Overthrow existing Sunni-led Middle Eastern governments.
4. Establish Shia authoritarian theocracy over the Shia dominated lands in the Middle East and regain primacy in the Middle East.
Now that we have the strategic goals of the major players – how are we doing?
US: First three achieved and working on goal 4. Went on the strategic offensive and overthrew the Taliban and Saddam. Established democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq. US and allied governments currently fighting to consolidate gains made to date. Rolled up terror cells worldwide. No successful attacks against US mainland in five years and kept economy strong.
Al Quida: Leadership has been decimated and is now in hiding. No successful attacks against the US mainland in five years. Has lost its bases in Afghanistan. Failed to get the US out of the Middle East, overthrow any Sunni regimes, or establish a Caliphate. Has been able to continue to claim it is a player by simple survival and a very effective propaganda campaign. Hard to claim victory from a cave.
Saddam: Completely failed. Made arguably the worst intelligence failure by misreading the US.
Iran: Has failed to push the US from the region. Pursuing nuclear weapons because its support of the Shia insurgency in the south and support of Sunni insurgency in the west (with Syria’s support) in isn’t doing the job. Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons has spooked its Sunni Arab neighbors to begin nuclear programs.
Now that we have reviewed the strategic objectives of each of the main players, why would the ISG want to give our enemies everything they want and snatch defeat from the jaws of US strategic victory?
Administration officials: Key proposals are impractical or unrealistic
< a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/world/middleeast/10prexy.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin"> Bush Aides Seek Alternatives to Iraq Study Group’s Proposals, Calling Them Impractical
Negotiation with Iran and Syria is an exercise in self-erasure; it will result in the irrelevance of the United States, whether one means its military power, its national or strategic interests, or its once-admired revolutionary Democratic ideals replaced by Khomeinist world vision of submission, subjugation , and tyranny in the name of religion. I’m glad President Bush is not caving into the demands of axis of geriartics.
Here is the link for the above article.
U.S. Policy toward Iran; Speaker: R. Nicholas Burns, Undersecretary of State
Forging a Strategy Toward Iran–PDF FILE.
Congress condemns Iran’s Anti-Holocaust Conference
Guess who’s Ahmadinejad’s special Guest? American David Duke will give a keynote speech at the Iranian Holocaust Conference in Tehran today. Duke says, “The Holocaust Conference in Iran is truly about respect for intellectual freedom.” Duke is a special guest of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Was it mommy or daddy who failed to hug you often enough, Pete?
By the way, the committee, after all the discussion with foreign policy experts and generals did not come up with recommendations I endorse. I just wanted to point out the error of blaming messengers for message you don’t like.Neo’s fall back position of late. I know soldiers can’t let it affect their performance but they must be thinking “what the hell is going on?”
Neo–
Thanks for the note. You have great stats there. I knew who they were but I hadn’t realized how tilted the median age was…total them up and we’re dealing with Methusla…without all his synapses firing.
I did a piece quoting Frank Gaffney, who is an expert in things military. Go here for his remarks:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/12/frank-gaffney-iraq-surrender-group.html
Can’t remember if I linked the policy group he belongs to. If not, I recommend you google it.
BTW, and off topic, we must be hitting the big time: the trolls are starting to arrive. They bestir me Irish temperament.
So not having experience in foreign affairs makes one unqualified in matters of war? You don’t say. Does that include starting them in the first place?
Surely Bush is not the the most qualified person for this particular task. Surely he is not even close.
An obscure, toothless group like the USIP coopted James Baker’s thinking? Surely you jest.
As for who made Baker king? Nobody. But the leadership vacuum on Iraq from the executive branch made him and his group sadly necessary. He’ll fade away now and while the ISG report’s strategy recommendations might not be worth much, he and his group did make an enormous political and historical contribution by making headlines with a very stark contrast between Bush’s very recent depictions of the situation in Iraq and their findings. (“we’re winning” vs. “grave and deteriorating” and “it’s Al Qaeda” vs. “it’s sectarian violence”). Over the last nearly four years the president and his blindest supporters have, with ever diminishing degrees of success been misleading the public on the progress and the very nature of the fiasco in Iraq. It’s one thing for Russ Feingold to point this out publicly but for a bipartisan group dominated by a Republican to do so is another and as such it’s an enormous gift to anyone who can’t understand how Bush can manage to have even a 30% approval rating at this late date. The truth is sinking in slowly but surely and this report paints Bush and his neocon supporters into an even smaller corner than you’ve already been occupying. Get ready to be beaten over the head with this report in ’08 and good luck in the future trying to blame “defeat” in Iraq on democrats and the MSM with this report’s findings out there to deal with.
And the Republicans lost congress largely because of Iraq so to say that we wouldn’t be hearing so much about the ISG if only the Republicans had won ignores the reason they lost. The reason the Republicans lost is the same reason the ISG was necessary in the first place.
I find it interesting that such an important thing as America engaged in a war seemingly always turns to Republicans vs. Democrats. As if that’s the important end result here. I guess to lawnguylander, it is.
Get ready to be beaten over the head with this report in ’08 and good luck in the future trying to blame “defeat” in Iraq on democrats and the MSM with this report’s findings out there to deal with.
The word “defeat” doesn’t need the scare quotes above — if the defeatist Democrats have their way, it will be a defeat pure and simple, and with all the consequences that defeats entail. In this case, that includes a strong revival of islamist terrorism throughout the region, funded by oil money, with the near certainty that America will be hit hard again. For the nutroots, of course, beating Republicans over the head is all that matters. But for everyone else — assuming, as I say, that the defeatists prevail — the critical failure of this time will be seen to be a failure of nerve and determination just when they were most needed, to force a decisive transformation in the malignant, terrorist-breeding “stability” of the Middle East as a whole. And like all such failures, this one too will either have to be redeemed later, with a much higher cost in lives and wealth, or will simply be the first slip of a long, fear-ridden, reality-denying, downhill slide.
The old-timers, “surrender monkeys” and gasbags at the USIP and the ISG would seem to be in good company. These quotes are from 2005:
“We can’t kill them all..When I kill one I create three.”
—Lt. Col. Frederick P. Wellman
“I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that…this insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or military operations…It’s going to be settled in the political process.”
—Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq
“We push in Baghdad – they’re down to about less than a car bomb a day in Baghdad over the last week – but in north-center (Iraq) … they’ve gone up…The political process will be the decisive element.”
—Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq
Iranian Students Smash Cameras, Burn Ahmadinijad Photos During His Speech in Tehran!!
Students smashed Iranian state television cameras installed to cover the event!!
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/
Ahmadinejad Accuses the Students of Having No Shame and Being on the Payroll of the U.S.
December 11, 2006
CNN News
CNN.com
TEHRAN, Iran — A group of students Monday briefly interrupted a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at their university by booing and chanting “Death to the dictator,” Iranian news agencies reported. The protesting students apparently avoided security guards who tried to prevent them from attending the speech at Amir Kabir University, according to the student news Web site, ADWAR.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/11/iran
How, Sally, can the US be defeated in a fight that is between Iraqis? That’s my reason for the quotation marks. Failure to prevent sectarian violence from taking over, yes, defeat, no. Going back to the theme of making sure you have qualified, experienced people in positions of power, this civil war was entirely predictable. There is a large record of various opponents of the war predicting so much of what has gone wrong but no one who mattered paid any attention. A commission like the ISG was in order before we went into Iraq to study the history and culture of the region among other topics but that was never going to happen.
And so yes, Holmes, domestic politics will always be important but as a means to an end result not as an end itself. Advocating the defeat of Republicans at the polls and the marginalizion of neocons politically as a means of removing their influence from our foreign policy process is a goal you may oppose and debate but it is my right. Did Republicans stop trying to win elections during WWII, Korea, Vietnam? Of course not. And let’s put sanctimony aside and remember that both parties played politics with Iraq in the recent election. The Democrats won.
– they guzzle Geritol these hapless geezers and pretend America is still the prime mover and shaker on the planet – bah! humbug!
Lawnguy: How, Sally, can the US be defeated in a fight that is between Iraqis?
Interpreting what’s at issue in Iraq as merely “a fight … between Iraqis” is already symptomatic of defeat. The incipient civil war is no doubt a bad thing for Iraqis themselves, but in itself, you’re right, it’s no defeat for the US, and in any case might be resolved in a number of ways, including partition. The defeat for the US lies in its role in just the sort of rationalization for, essentially, cutting and running, that we see in your comment — “what’s this to do with us, let’s just call the whole thing a mistake and bug out,” say, in essence, the various defeatists and the easily distracted. In thus leaving a power vacuum for the machinations of theocrats, islamofascists, and terrorists, yes, this would leave us worse off than before — as do all defeats.
Sally, you misquoted me. I said no such thing and in fact said nothing about what we should now do in Iraq. I do know that acknowledging the nature of the violence and our level of success in stopping it was a crucial first step and that’s why I praise the ISG report. It contradicts what we’ve been hearing from Bush and I think that was necessary for the debate to move towards any consensus on what to do next. Anyone who refuses to admit the severity and nature of the problem over there is a defeatist in my eyes because you can’t win without acknowledging the nature of the fight.
As for the US “winning” the fight between various Iraqis’ for control, whom do you propose we support? I hope you’re not going to name an unknown force of people in Iraq who are reasonable, democratic, pro-US, committed to reconciliation between Sunnis and Shia and happen to have the political and military resources to bring that kind of nation into being. No such group exists. If our desire is to bring such a group into being do you suppose we could do so by military means? How would killing more Iraqis create such a class of politicians and their supporters? Instead we’re left with the kinds of characters you named plus some other very bad people. So whom do you want to support? The Iranian linked Shia or the Al Qaeda linked Sunnis? Does it make me a defeatist to say that I’m very reluctant to back anyone like that at the cost of more American lives? Until someone comes up with a plan for how we win the war between Iraqis I’ll remain skeptical that a military solution exists. Apparently the ISG agrees or they would have recommended a military solution. And I don’t see a call for more troops without an underlying plan, a la McCain, as anything other than a substance free political stunt.
It can hardly be said that the ISG followed any kind of rational decision making process. Define the problem, generate solutions, evaluate and choose a solution. They stopped at step 1 by defining the problem in terms of the solution. “We are losing and need to get out so the problem here is that we are losing and need to get out. The solution is thus to get out.” How else could the problem be framed? Or what other solutions did they generate? The fix was on from the moment they got together.
Lawmguy proposes that we fall for “compression” and frame the problem in terms of “a fight between Iraqis.” Sure, that’s what this is all about. It’s not about a fight with radical islamists, disregard that Mullah behind the curtain.
I have my organization behavior final this evening, thanks for indulging me in this analysis 🙂
“They stopped at step 1 by defining the problem in terms of the solution….”We are losing and need to get out so the problem here is that we are losing and need to get out. The solution is thus to get out.””
Um, need it be said that if the consensus in (the Republican-led) congress was that we were truly marching towards victory in Iraq, there would have been no convening of the ISG in the first place?
You guys seem like you are truly prepared to have us there getting hit with IEDs for the 20 or 30 years.
Can someone give me a modern instance of a decisive victory by a foreign occupier against a domestic guerilla insurgency? I can’t seem to think of one, but I’m sure someone here will…
Until someone comes up with a plan for how we win the war between Iraqis I’ll remain skeptical that a military solution exists.
We don’t need to win the war between Iraqis — that, or ending it in some other way, is their business. Our business, in the short run, is seeing to it that no puppet state of either Iran or Syria emerges, and that no settled areas or funds that support terrorists be established. In the longer run, our business is precisely to help those Iraqis who are reasonable, pro-democracy, pro-US, and committed to reconciliation all round build the political and military forces necessary to bring their kind of nation into being. Because that — as opposed to trying to negotiate from weakness with fanatics and petty tyrants to reach some cynical, face-saving cover for a retreat — is the only way to avoid a dangerous and very costly failure.
Skepticism is usually a good and useful thing — but sometimes, particularly when things are looking bad, it becomes just a way of avoiding any position but that of the “I told you so”.
Sally, how can it be our business to establish a government we like but not our business to stop the civil war first? How is such a government going to exist with all the violence still going on? Any serious suggestion that we should stay in Iraq has to have an answer for stopping the civil war first. I’ve yet to see even the semblance of one here or anywhere else.
There was an article pasted into this thread earlier by a retired Colonel that is well worth reading. It was deleted but here’s the link:
http://www.douglasmacgregor.com/view.htm
It’s good to know I didn’t miss anything judging from the stuff.
“Can someone give me a modern instance of a decisive victory by a foreign occupier against a domestic guerilla insurgency? I can’t seem to think of one, but I’m sure someone here will…”
Russian army quelling Chechen rebellion is a good example. It included leveling one city and several villages, but victory was decisive.
C’mon now. Civil wars do not have a way of working themselves out. They typically end with a decisive victory by one side and there are almost always outside forces involved. You have not seriously answered my question at all.
Lawnguy: Civil wars do not have a way of working themselves out.
A “decisive victory by one side” is one way of working themselves out, as you notice yourself. The problem with outside forces isn’t simply that they’re involved, it’s that they can prevent such a decisive victory, or any other form of ending, and thus prolong the struggle indefinitely — that’s why they should be the primary target of US forces.
Thanks Sergey.
1 Russian soldier wounded in rebel ambush in Chechnya
The Associated Press
Published: December 11, 2006
ROSTOV-ON-DON, Russia: A Russian soldier was wounded when rebels ambushed federal troops in Chechnya, officials said Monday.
The soldier received multiple gunshot wounds Monday when militants fired at a group of Russian servicemen who were conducting a security sweep in Chechnya’s southern Shatoi region, the regional branch of Russia’s Interior Ministry said in a statement. The attackers fled.
Large-scale battles ended in Chechnya years ago, but the mostly Muslim region is plagued by regular rebel attacks as well as violence blamed on federal troops and forces of the Moscow-backed Chechen government. Violence often has spilled into neighboring provinces in Russia’s volatile North Caucasus…
Is that the kind of decisive victory we are hoping for in Iraq?
UB:
The homicide rate in Washington, DC is about the same as that in the “tamer” regions of Iraq. Should we get out of that “quagmire” in DC?
What would “victory” in Iraq look like to you? Do you care? You keep calling for the US to leave, but what do you think will happen if we do? What would happen if Israel left all of the “occupied” lands? What would happen if, God forbid, Israel ceased to exist? Do you think the Islamists would be satisfied then?
What does Bali have to do with the Israel-Palestinian conflict or the US? East Timor? Spain? France? Darfur? Rwanda?
Russia suffers from corrupt politics and inadequate Imperial infrastructure agencies that can rebuild destroyed cities. They can pacify cities, but they won’t stay pacified, because the Chechnyans don’t have a better choice offered to them by the Russian government.
America suffers from being too lenient and having too much reconstruction funds and agencies. If ever America and Russia formed a “CoDominium”, cutting the hemisphere of this world into US and Russian, we could make a good deal. The Russians do the killing, we clean things up after wards.
The number of causalities in Chechnya is now hardly bigger than in any police force in any large city. Crime and violence are unavoidal realities of normal life everywhere, the problem is only if the number of such events acceptable. If policmen were killed in some other place, papers simply would not mention it. No other Caucasian republic will now follow Chechen example, so grand strategy of militant Islam to rout Russia from Caucasia is definitely defeated. But British troops in Ulster are there 50 years already, and political solution is still problematic. We occupy and will occupy Chechnya for 50 years ahead, and this still better than allow it became terrorists safe heaven.
Anonymous said to me:
“You keep calling for the US to leave, but what do you think will happen if we do?”
Everyone please note that I have never, not *once* stated on this blog that the US should leave Iraq.
(I do believe we never should have gone there in the first place, but that is entirely different.)
I accept Bush’s (most recent) definition of victory in Iraq.
I also accept our senior military command’s opinion (sources posted elsewhere) that the current situation in Iraq has no military solution.
I don’t pretend to have the answer to this mess, but I am certain of the following:
Contrary to the belief of many on this forum, the victory we seek in Iraq will not be achieved by the sheer will of the American people, the leveling of Iraqi cities, or the merciless killing of Iraqi children.
“Contrary to the belief of many on this forum, the victory we seek in Iraq will not be achieved by the sheer will of the American people, the leveling of Iraqi cities, or the merciless killing of Iraqi children.”
I’m pretty sure nobody’s advocated the ‘merciless killing of Iraqi children’ in comments here…well maybe Ymar in his own special way. Nor do ‘many on this forum’ advocate ‘the leveling of Iraqi cities’. That’s YOUR hangup, not ours. And if you’re not advocating the US leaving, what ARE you advocating? Please let us know what your grand strategy for Iraq is?
Oh, that’s right…”I don’t pretend to have the answer to this mess”
Then your comments are pretty much worthless, aren’t they?
Regular contributors in good standing here have EXPLICITLY advocated indiscriminate killing of children and leveling of cities as solutions to Iraq and have gone unchallenged.
Besides those helpful suggestions, the only other thing I hear around here is that we *are* winning and no change of strategy is necessary: The real problem is that we just don’t have enough “will” to finish the job. We aren’t willing to “sacrifice.”
As if all we had to do was just think real hard, stand on the sidelines and cheer real loud, and the Sunnis and the Shiites will magically stop attacking each other, the police force will clean itself up, the Iraqis will finally begin getting all the basic services they need, etc., etc., all from the sheer force of our national unity and resolve.
I am being honest when I say I don’t have the answer to Iraq. I don’t think anyone really does.
If an honest comment is worthless to you, then so be it.
If an honest comment is worthless to you, then so be it.
The world is round, the sun rises in the east, I don’t have the answer to a theory of everything — there, three “honest comments”, each of them worth a lot more than some self-righteous “unknown blogger” telling everyone smugly that he/she/it doesn’t “have the answer to Iraq”, and thinking that this is some moral accomplishment. Get over yourself.
Sally, you have offered nothing of substance when twice directly asked what we should do in Iraq so where do you get off attacking unknown blogger for at least being honest that he doesn’t know what we should do? Not that I really expected a serious answer from someone who thinks civil wars have a way of working themselves out.
Lawnguy, you’ve got to learn to read — I’ve said what I think the general strategy should be numerous times, and if you don’t understand it by now then the problem is yours. Not that I expect comprehension from someone who thinks all civil wars must be endless.
I went back and re-read your posts and yeah, you’ve offered a general strategy along the lines of “Ending the civil war is the Iraqi’s business, no wait, we should stop outside forces from prolonging the civil war and then have the civil war turn out the way we want it to and once it works itself out then have a government in place that we like”. That is very useful. I don’t know how I missed the wisdom in that and I hope you’ll pass along those kinds of recommendations to the White House and Pentagon. Sometime in January, Tony Snow won’t even committ that it will be ready by the State of the Union address, the president is going to be announcing some kind of new stategy. Because it’s not like there’s any rush.
I notice Sally that you just used a common tactic around here, which is rather than address the substance of a comment, the focus becomes an attitude, personal characteristic, or belief which is perceived to be implied in the comment.
Surely you must be aware that the main point of my post above was not my honesty, but rather my conviction that the war in Iraq will not be won
“if only the liberals would stop criticizing Bush,”
“if only the MSM would stop being so negative,”
“if only Americans could find the will to continue the fight,”
“if only we could level a few cities and kill children without remorse,”
or, as you seem to advocate above,
“if only we could widen the conflict to include Iran and Syria in order to eradicate outside influences.”
I can certainly elaborate on why I hold those convictions, if anyone is interested.
On the other hand, while I do want things to turn out well for us in Iraq, I don’t feel responsible for coming up with a solution for it, nor do I feel compelled to support solutions I disagree with.
I went back and re-read your posts….
See, Lawnguy, it’s not just enough to read something, you have to actually comprehend what you’re reading. The idea that ending the civil war is the Iraqis’ business, but stopping outsiders from prolonging it is our business, isn’t all that difficult for most people to grasp, but it evidently is for you, who seem to think that the two processes are somehow contradictory. Maybe you just shouldn’t sweat it anymore, you know? Try taking an interest in flower arrangement or something a little less mentally exhausting for you.
UB: … if anyone is interested.
Sadly, UB, I doubt anyone much is (not counting Lawnguy of course). Wanting things to “turn out well”, but ridiculing those who who suggest ways they might (including those with responsibility for seeing they do), all while shrugging off any need to think of “solutions” yourself — this is a combination of attitudes I might expect from a spoiled and rather obtuse child. Calling them “convictions” is just laughable.
James Baker made shrub king, first off.
Secondly, BAker is a God among a dying breed “North Eastern Republicans”. (see November 2006).
The ISG was being produced well before the debacles of November.
Saddam is gone, there were no “stockpiles of WMD”, there is now a democratic government in Iraq with a large standing army.
Just call it victory based on the initial goals and pull out.
Nothing is served by remaining, the government will not hold, the army is riven by splits, death squads and torturers operate wth impunity – the civil ar if not there already is on the way.
Baker is a “realist” (remember those) who unlike your president lives in a “reality” based environment.
I deeply deeply deeply dislike James Baker after all the Saudi blood money he has taken, after the 2000 election and myriad other atrocities commited against america – but hey ho. He’s right on this, and it does pain me to say it.
W
Sally, apart from blatant contradictions of previous submissions your posts are very easy to comprehend. It’s just that they’re pointless and increasingly insulting to those who disagree with you. I suspect I would find more substantive suggestions on a way forward in Iraq in a floral arrangement than in your posts so there’s unintended value in that insult. At least a bunch of flowers wouldn’t post self assured but contradictory suggestions on how we should approach the Iraqi civil war for everyone here to read. Like you it would not answer the question of which of the actual powers that be in Iraq we should support now. Unlike you we couldn’t get frustrated with it for that and would continue talking to it. There is supposed to be some value in talking to flowers and while I’m skeptical of that I see for sure that it’s pointless to engage you.
Sally, I see you just can’t stop yourself, can you?
… I see for sure that it’s pointless to engage you.
Likewise.
(comment RE Baker making Bush king was a play on someone else asking who made Baker the King).
(Conflicting messages are easily explained by re-iterating it is a confusuing situation with no clear way forward). It boils down to US (the USA and Britain) being able to define what a victory would be and finding a way of declaring it, otherwise we will have lost.
The “war” is no longer being fought on the same terms it started – nation vs nation. We won that war convincingly – we should have recalled the army, given it civilian leadership, called Iraq a protectorate of some kind and got the rebuild going immediately.
That is unfortunately in the past.
you can’t take sides in a civil war – there are no winners.
my strategy for not having ass kicked quite so badly is to create a phased Federal Iraq, with a central army, health and secular education system. The Oil money should go into a central pot and redistributed on an enforced per capita basis to each region.
Each region is responsible for its own policing and reconstruction efforts according it its own needs.
A vast majority of foreign combat forces are withdrawn from theatre by mid 2008, special forces and embedded advisors are invited in from non-alligned nations.
There will be a mass migration to Sunni and Shia regions – this is to be expected, and as we are not talking about full independence for each region the migration would be relatively staggered.
If a central strongman emerges and lets the regions govern themselves under a single NAtional flag i don’t think that is something we should be overly concerned about.
W
I like the valuable information you provide in your articles.
I will bookmark your blog and take a look at once more here frequently.
I am moderately sure I’ll be informed many new stuff
proper here! Best of luck for the next!