Iraq Study Group Report - Summary Please?

The San Jose Mercury has a great summary of key points.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/16179050.htm

Quote:

Posted on Wed, Dec. 06, 2006email thisprint this
Key findings of the Iraq Study Group report
McClatchy Newspapers

(MCT)

WASHINGTON - One of the objectives of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group was to provide an objective view of the situation in Iraq, free of partisan bickering and political spin. Here, drawn from throughout the report, are findings on some critical issues.

_The Overall Situation

"There is no guarantee for success in Iraq. The situation in Baghdad and several provinces is dire . . . The level of violence is high and growing. There is great suffering, and the daily lives of many Iraqis show little or no improvement. Pessimism is pervasive. . . . (T)he ability of the United States to influence events in Iraq is diminishing. . . .

"Four of Iraq's eighteen provinces are highly insecure - Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala and Salah ad Din. These provinces account for about 40 percent of Iraq's population of 26 million. . . .

"Recent polling indicates that only 36 percent of Iraqis feel their country is heading in the right direction, and 79 percent of Iraqis have a `mostly negative' view of the influence that the United States has in their country."

_The Sunni Muslim Insurgency

"Most attacks against Americans still come from the Sunni insurgency. . . . It has significant support with the Sunni Arab community. . . . Al-Qaida in Iraq is now largely Iraqi-run and composed of Sunni Arabs. Foreign fighters - numbering an estimated 1,300 - play a supporting role or carry out suicide operations."

_Shiite Militias

"The Mahdi Army, led by Moqtada al-Sadr, may number as many as 60,000 fighters. It has directly challenged U.S. and Iraqi government forces, and it is widely believed to engage in regular violence against Sunni Arab civilians. . . .

"The Badr Brigade is affiliated with the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), which is led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. The Badr Brigade has long-standing ties with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Many Badr members have become integrated into the Iraqi police, and others play policing roles in southern Iraqi cities. While wearing the uniform of the security services, Badr fighters have targeted Sunni Arab civilians."

_The U.S. Military

"Nearly every U.S. Army and Marine combat unit, and several National Guard and Reserve units, have been to Iraq at least once. . . . Regular rotations, in and out of Iraq or within the country (Iraq), complicate brigade and battalion efforts to get to know the local scene, earn the trust of the populations, and build a sense of cooperation.

"Many military units are under significant strain. . . . (M)any units do not have fully functional equipment for training when they redeploy to the United States. . . .

"The American military has little reserve force to call on if it needs ground forces to respond to other crises around the world."

_The Iraqi Army and Police

"The Iraqi Army is making fitful progress toward becoming a reliable and disciplined fighting force loyal to the national government. . . . Significant questions remain about the ethnic composition and loyalties of some Iraqi units - specifically, whether they will carry out missions on behalf of national goals instead of a sectarian agenda. . . .

"The state of the Iraqi police is substantially worse than that of the Iraqi Army. . . . It has neither the training nor legal authority to conduct criminal investigations, nor the firepower to take on organized crime, insurgents or militias. . . .

"Iraqi police cannot control crime, and they routinely engage in sectarian violence, including the unnecessary detention, torture and targeted execution of Sunni Arab civilians. . . .

"There is no clear Iraqi or U.S. agreement on the character and mission of the police. . . ."

_The Baghdad Security Plan

"In a major effort to quell violence in Iraq, U.S. military forces joined with Iraqi forces to establish security in Baghdad with an operation called `Operation Forward Together II,' which began in August 2006. . . .

"The results . . . are disheartening. Violence in Baghdad - already at high levels - jumped more than 43 percent between the summer and October 2006. U.S. forces continue to suffer high casualties. Perpetrators of violence leave neighborhoods in advance of security troops, only to filter back later. Iraqi police have been unable or unwilling to stop such infiltration. . . . The Iraqi government has rejected sustained security operations in Sadr City (a Shiite stronghold)."

_Iraqi Governance

"Iraq's leaders often claim they do not want a division of the country, but we found that key Shia and Kurdish leaders have little commitment to national reconciliation. One prominent Shia leader told us pointedly that the current government has the support of 80 percent of the population, notably excluding Sunni Arabs. . . . (M)any of Iraq's most powerful and well-positioned leaders are not working toward a united Iraq. . . ."

_Electricity

"The Iraqi government is not providing its people with basic services: electricity, drinking water, sewage, health care, and education."

_The Economy

"Currency reserves are stable and growing. . . . Consumer imports . . . have increased dramatically. New businesses are opening. . . . (W)heat yields increased more than 40 percent in Kurdistan this year. . . .

"Despite the positive signs, many leading economic indicators are negative. . . . Inflation is above 50 percent. Unemployment estimates range widely from 20 to 60 percent. The investment climate is bleak. . . ."

_Oil

"Iraq produces around 2.2 million barrels (of oil) per day, and exports about 1.5 million barrels per day. This is below . . . pre-war production levels . . ."

_Refugees

"The United Nations estimates that 1.6 million (Iraqis) are displaced within Iraq, and up to 1.8 million Iraqis have fled the country."

_Iran and Syria

"Of all the neighbors, Iran has the most leverage in Iraq. Iran has long-standing ties to many Iraqi Shia politicians. . . . (and) has provided arms, financial support, and training for Shiite militias. . . . Iran appears content for the U.S. military to be tied down in Iraq, a position that limits U.S. options in addressing Iran's nuclear program. . . .

"The Syrian role is not so much to take active measures as to countenance malign neglect: The Syrians look the other way as arms and foreign fighters flow across their border into Iraq. . . . Like Iran, Syria is content to see the United States tied down in Iraq."

_The Cost of the War

"As of December 2006, nearly 2,900 Americans have lost their lives serving in Iraq. Another 21,000 Americans have been wounded, many severely.

"To date, the United States has spent roughly $400 billion on the Iraq War, and costs are running about $8 billion per month. In addition, the United States must expect significant `tail costs' to come. Caring for veterans and replacing lost equipment will run in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Estimates run as high as $2 trillion for the final cost of the U.S. involvement in Iraq."

_The Possible Consequences of Iraq Violence

"Ambassadors from neighboring countries told us that they fear the distinct possibility of Sunni-Shia clashes across the Islamic world. . . . Terrorism could grow. . . . The global standing of the United States could suffer if Iraq descends further into chaos. . . . Continued problems in Iraq could lead to greater polarization in the United States."

0 Replies

It is a report of desperation and failure for all to see. Our enemies have us by the proverbial "nuts." There are no doubt smiles and joy throughout the capitals of our enemies, the great Satan is bleeding profusely..

0 Replies

Editorials/Op-Ed
Washindgton Times.
t

A bipartisan path to surrender?
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
December 7, 2006

In analyzing the conclusions and the usefulness of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) recommendations on Iraq policy released yesterday, it's important to realize the limited, seriously flawed mandate the panel chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton has been operating under. Panel members say they were not given a mandate to consider increasing the number of American troops in Iraq because their military briefers dismissed out of hand the premise that it was possible to increase the number of American troops in Iraq, on grounds that not enough were available. (Never mind the public comments by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, reported in this space yesterday, suggesting otherwise.) More than 30 pages of the report consist of biographies of commission members and lists of people they interviewed; we counted just five pages devoted to the matter of U.S. troop levels in Iraq -- most of it dismissing out of hand the idea that more troops might be necessary to fight the Sunni and Shi'ite jihadists who prey upon Iraqis.
Even more troubling is the fact that panel members said their mandate was primarily limited to finding a a way to stabilize Iraq alone, (although they could consider the regional context) rather than assessing it in the context of the larger U.S. war against international Islamofascism. Given the fact that the Baker-Hamilton panel did not principally consider the most important issue before the country, it is not a surprise that its report as a whole is a step backward -- a compendium of platitudes and wishful thinking that taken together would reward America's enemies and undermine the larger war against Islamofascism.
As is often the case when highly distinguished people of varying political persuasions get together in an effort to reach consensus, the end result is a watered-down document that will do little to help the president or congressional policy-makers come up with a more effective strategy in the war. Much of the report consists of ominous but familiar quotes from terrorist luminaries like al Qaeda's No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and restatements of the obvious (for example, "SCIRI has close ties with Iran; "the Iran border with Iraq is porous"; and "The United States should work closely with Iraq's leaders to support the achievement of specific objectives -- or milestones -- on national reconciliation, security, and governance"). In other places, the panel makes sensible-sounding, noncontroversial proposals for reforming U.S. assistance programs for Iraq and building a functioning Iraqi judicial system and oil industry.
But in critical areas, the report goes in precisely the wrong direction. For example, it calls on Washington to "engage directly with Iran and Syria" in order to "obtain their commitment to constructive polices toward Iraq and other regional issues." After noting the obvious -- that engaging Iran is "problematic" -- it calls for a diplomatic campaign to persuade Tehran to join an "Iraq International Support Group" to help resolve Iraq's "political, diplomatic and security problems." If Iran refused to help, the panel warns darkly, then its rejectionist attitude could "lead to its isolation." More likely, such a campaign would embolden Tehran, which would see such a move for what it really is: an act of desperation.
The panel's suggestions that Washington should also broker agreements with Syria to stop arms shipments into Iraq and help persuade Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist are completely detached from reality. Some of the major recommendations in the report read like articles of surrender.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

It is a report of desperation and failure for all to see. Our enemies have us by the proverbial "nuts." There are no doubt smiles and joy throughout the capitals of our enemies, the great Satan is bleeding profusely..

Oh!

Ouch!

0 Replies

Iraq Study Group Report - Summary Please?

We f*cked up.

Now we're screwed.

0 Replies

In order to get Syria's help the proposal is to force Israel to give up the Golan Heights. I suppose the next step is to sell the state of israel down the river to get Iran on board. I doubt that even that would help. They would rather see the US bleed. In any event why would they since they now hold the winning hand.

0 Replies

Syria and Israel have already begun to negotiate the return of the Golan Heights. In fact, they were in negotiations about the Shebaa Farms at the time of this summer's war with the Lebanon--with Syria expressing a willingness to give up their claim to the strip of land represented by Shebaa Farms, which had been disputed territory between Syria and the Lebanon before Israel grabbed the Heights in 1967. Many observers consider that this may have been a motivating factor for Hezbollah's raid into Israel, which Israel used as a casus belli to attack the Lebanon. Hezbollah has refused to disarm and honor the settlement arrived at in 2000 on the basis of the claim that Israel was illegally occupying the Shebaa Farms, among other demands upon which they made disarmament contingent.

Don't make things up, Au, we're not all ignorant of the situation in the middle east.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Iraq Study Group Report - Summary Please?

We f*cked up.

Now we're screwed.

That's how I like it. Terse and succinct!

Anyhow, if anyone is interested in reading the whole thing, it can be downloaded at:

http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/iraq_study_group_report.pdf

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Syria and Israel have already begun to negotiate the return of the Golan Heights. In fact, they were in negotiations about the Shebaa Farms at the time of this summer's war with the Lebanon--with Syria expressing a willingness to give up their claim to the strip of land represented by Shebaa Farms, which had been disputed territory between Syria and the Lebanon before Israel grabbed the Heights in 1967. Many observers consider that this may have been a motivating factor for Hezbollah's raid into Israel, which Israel used as a casus belli to attack the Lebanon. Hezbollah has refused to disarm and honor the settlement arrived at in 2000 on the basis of the claim that Israel was illegally occupying the Shebaa Farms, among other demands upon which they made disarmament contingent.

Don't make things up, Au, we're not all ignorant of the situation in the middle east.

That may be true. However, based on what I read. "Get Isreal to return the Golan heights to syria in return for foreign troops on the border for Israels security"

Would that be the same foreign troops that are now keeping Hizbollah out of southern Lebenon?

As for the selling Isreal down the river, that was just, well I am not sure what it was? In this environment who knows?

0 Replies

Forget about what Bush thinks. Let the people who really control the White House decide.

Quote:

Israel brushes off Iraq report, no to Syria talks Israel brushes off Iraq
report, no to Syria talks

Israel's prime minister on Thursday said it was wrong to link the Arab-Israeli conflict with woes in the Middle East and ruled out any immediate talks with Syria despite a U.S. report urging negotiations/

Ehud Olmert said he expected little pressure from Washington in the wake of the high profile report by the Iraq Study Group, which called on President George W. Bush to push for Arab-Israeli peace as part of efforts to ease regional tensions...

It's obvious as to who is truly calling the shots on this issue.

0 Replies

By Lou Dobbs
CNN

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The bipartisan Iraq Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican, and former 9/11 Commission Co-Chair, Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, has been at work for eight months to develop an assessment of the war in Iraq and new policy recommendations.

But yesterday the president's nominee to succeed Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense, Robert Gates, gave a clear assessment of the war. When the soon-to-be-chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, asked the former CIA chief whether the United States was winning, Gates answered directly and straightforwardly, "No, sir."

Gates' answer is far more important to future U.S. strategy than whether one considers the violence in Iraq to be sectarian or an outright civil war. And Gates made clear during his confirmation hearings that, unlike his predecessor, he would be open to ideas about American policy in Iraq.

But there are fundamental realities that we all have to acknowledge about this administration's conduct of the war in Iraq. Those realities have been ignored by both this administration and most Democrats and Republicans in Congress. And just in case the Iraq Study Group ignores those realities, I'd like to offer a few for your consideration.

While many of our elected officials and the national media have focused on whether or not Iraq is now in a civil war, the real questions are: What is our national interest in the Middle East and why are we expending thousands of precious lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to pursue obviously failed strategies?

Nearly 3,000 of our troops have been killed since the beginning of the war in Iraq; all but 139 of them after President Bush stood below a banner declaring "Mission Accomplished." More than 21,000 troops have been wounded, and of those about 10,000 of were so seriously wounded they could not return to duty within three days.

The Pentagon is considering a request of at least $127 billion in new spending, most of which would be to support the war in Iraq. That request would be in addition to the $70 billion already allocated for next year, bringing the total allocation for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and anti-terror efforts to almost a half-trillion dollars.

Not only was this administration wrong in declaring Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but it was also wildly wrong in its original estimate on the cost of the war. Then-White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey put the cost at $100 billion to $200 billion. Mitch Daniels, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget, discounted Lindsey's estimate as far too high and said the cost would be between $50 billion and $60 billion.

As absurd as Daniels' statement was, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz claimed that Iraq's oil revenue would cover the costs: "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. ... The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 billion and $100 billion over the course of the next two to three years. ... We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

Nobel laureate economist and Columbia University professor Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University professor of public policy Linda Bilmes now offer a far more reasonable and likely estimate of more than $1 trillion for this war.

Even the Bush administrations' efforts to put together a so-called "coalition of the willing" to carry out this war displayed an equal ignorance of realpolitik and economic reality. As President Bush sought to rationalize the Iraq adventure as a noble effort to democratize the Middle East, our European allies and Russia based their regional policies on economic reality.

While the United States imports only about 22 percent of its crude oil from the Middle East, the European Union imports 40 percent from the region, according to a 2000 European Commission green paper on the EU's energy supply. The paper also says that in the next 25 years the EU could be importing 90 percent of all its crude oil. The EU also imports more crude oil and natural gas from Russia than from any other country.

Those economic realities help explain European nations' reluctance to join the coalition of the willing. The European Union has more to lose than does the United States from direct involvement in the Middle East. The EU is more aptly called a union of the energy dependent. To take another perspective on the economic realities that the United States has ignored but which our European allies could not, Russia and the Middle East could strangle the European Union's economy almost at will.

And the United States has a small window of opportunity to invest in alternative energy sources that could relieve this country of the oil dependency that is driving our adventurous Middle East policies and the Europeans' timidity.

The half-trillion dollars that we have spent in precious capital to prosecute the war would have funded a massive alternative energy development program in this country or, failing that enlightened strategy, it would have at least paid for all of our oil imports for almost four years at current prices.

We can all hope that the Iraq Study Group's recommendations are positive contributions to a change of policy in Iraq and the Middle East. And we should also hope this nation embarks on extrication from our dependency on foreign energy sources and return to a rational policy of self-reliance.

0 Replies

The Hamilton-Baker Report was a big waste of time. Bush is still talking about "success in Iraq." They talk about "change," but their principal message remained the same. I differ from the pundits now speaking on tv who's saying they will have a course correction/new approach.

0 Replies

Bush: To win in Iraq,

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The Hamilton-Baker Report was a big waste of time. Bush is still talking about "success in Iraq." They talk about "change," but their principal message remained the same. I differ from the pundits now speaking on tv who's saying they will have a course correction/new approach.

CI
Success in Iraq is inevitable. The question is who will be successful.

0 Replies

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12072006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/frankly_incensed__unwise_men_bear_gifts_for_butchers_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm

"Former Secretary of State James Baker and his panelists are trying to shore up the failing regional system that their generation designed. Released yesterday, their report doesn't offer "a new way forward." Its recommendations echo past failures. And it shows no sense of how gravely the world has changed.

The report doesn't offer a plan, but a muddle of truisms and truly bad ideas. "

"After 60 years of failure, we should have figured out that the Middle East's problems can't be solved through another round of negotiations. But diplomacy is the opium of our governing elite. They'd file a "nonpaper" with Satan over the temperature in hell.

The report's second-worst recommendation is to open discussions with Iran and Syria on Iraq, to try to make them part of the solution, rather than letting them continue to worsen the problem. The fatal difficulty is that only the desperate and the foolish negotiate from a position of weakness - you don't parley with the schoolyard bully while he's smacking you around and emptying your pockets.

Asking for help from Iran and Syria would only embolden them. And the last thing we need to do is to further encourage Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his belief that Iran and the Shia faith are predestined to dominate the region. As for Syria, Bashar Assad needs a whipping, not a reward. "

"The most sensible recommendation from the Baker team is the now-routine demand that Iraqis fight for their own country. Their government has to show the will and ability to defeat and disarm all of its enemies. Without imposing an artificial timetable, the report stresses that we have to penalize the Baghdad government if it fails to perform: Iraq's leaders can't just keep lining their pockets while bodies line the country's roads.

But perhaps the most striking aspect of the report is its underlying nostalgia. Baker longs for the "orderly" world of Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, the elder Assad and, above all, unchallenged Saudi influence in Washington.

The report cries out for an appendix listing Baker's many contacts with Saudis over the decades and all the Saudi-related financial pies in which he had a finger. After all of the blame-it-on-Israel criticism of the neoconservatives, the media have been strangely quiet about Baker's extensive ties to Riyadh. "

Not impressed with the report. Nothing even closely to solutions are suggested in the report.

0 Replies

au, How do you interpret "success in Iraq?" They've had sectarian violence their for over 1300 years. It's not a matter that the US can correct in our "life time." As woiyo pointed out, there are too many wishy washy proposals in the Hamilton-Baker Report that leaves out all the answers to the tough questions on disengagement. As Bush has said, this problem will continue on with future presidents, and by his most recent statements on "staying the course," that's a truism which nobody can deny.

0 Replies

CI
THe only success that can be had in Iraq if it can be called success is for a strong man to appear and take over the government. That is the only way for peace to be achieved in a nation where sectarian violence is as you say 1300 years in the making.
Of course that is by no means success. As for achieving the stated aims of Bush. That was a fools fairy tail from start to finish.

0 Replies

The problem is that only Bush is unawares there is no success to be had in Iraq.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

CI
THe only success that can be had in Iraq if it can be called success is for a strong man to appear and take over the government. That is the only way for peace to be achieved in a nation where sectarian violence is as you say 1300 years in the making.
Of course that is by no means success. As for achieving the stated aims of Bush. That was a fools fairy tail from start to finish.

Someone (I think it was Imus in the Morning), suggested that the "strong man" who should be put in charge of Iraq is the one guy we got rid of, Saddam. He was the one who could keep Iran at bay.

Let's make him a deal.

Tell Saddam... Sorry about Kuzy and Whozy....We took you out once, so lets make sure we do not have to do it again. Play nice.

0 Replies

Iraq Study Group Report - Summary Please?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know