Iraq Study Group Report - Summary Please?

ISG report, circa 1943
By Paul Greenberg
December 13, 2006



Imagine the progress Franklin D. Roosevelt might have made as commander in chief of American forces during the Second World War if only he could have had the benefit of advice from James Baker, Lee Hamilton and the other members of the Iraq Study Group. Today's column applies its lessons -- indeed, whole sections of its text -- to that earlier quagmire:
Washington, D.C.
Mr. President:
It is an honor and privilege to present you and the Congress with the attached 79 recommendations detailed in the following 50 pages. In addition you will find a 40-page preface summarizing the state of the current conflict, plus maps, lists of the experts whose advice contributed to our disinterested conclusions, and full biographies of the commissioners who participated in this bipartisan study. (Autographed photographs are available on request.)
After long and arduous study at a generally safe distance, and by matching the self-evident with the undeniable, offsetting every platitude with a generality, and scrupulously avoiding unhelpful and provocative concepts like honor and victory, we now have reached a carefully balanced bipartisan consensus sure to give no offense or risk dangerous specifics, to wit:
The situation worldwide is grave and deteriorating. There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved. During the last nine months we have considered a full range of approaches for moving forward. All have flaws. Our recommended course has shortcomings, but we firmly believe it includes the best strategies and tactics to positively influence the outcome.
Despite the greatest mass mobilization in our country's history, the enemy remains on the offensive and is proceeding to expand its earlier gains. To quote one of the distinguished historians on our extensive panel of consultants: "So swift and far-reaching were the Axis victories during the first six months of 1942 that it seemed the United States had lost the war." --Arthur S. Link, professor of history, Northwestern University, in his "American Epoch."
In view of Japanese dominance in the Pacific theater, it is time to open negotiations looking to a stable and enduring peace in the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The results of Operation TORCH in North Africa have proved no less disheartening. Despite early progress, the outlook is bleak, as this week's news from Kasserine Pass illustrates.
Appeals to Wilsonian ideals like freedom and self-determination cannot compete with traditional European and Asiatic modes of thinking that emphasize nationalism and obedience to a strong leader. We have become involved in lands whose culture and languages are woefully beyond our understanding, and with which we have little if anything in common.
What course do we recommend? Given the weakness of our allies, the United States should launch a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability, reconciliation and the reconstruction of Europe and Asia. The ambitions of Germany, Italy and Japan should be left to a revitalized League of Nations to deal with while we strive to reach a modus vivendi with their leaders.
There is no magic formula to solve the world's problems. However, there are actions that can be taken to improve the situation and protect American interests. Many Americans are dissatisfied, as the midterm elections of 1942 demonstrated, not just with the war but with the state of our political debate regarding the war.
Our political leaders must build a bipartisan approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what has become a costly conflict. Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric, and a policy that is adequately funded and sustainable. The president and Congress must work together. Our leaders must be candid and forthright with the American people in order to win their support.



No one can guarantee that any course of action at this point will stop the growing violence or a slide toward chaos. If current trends continue, the potential consequences are severe. Despite a massive effort, stability remains elusive and the situation is deteriorating. The ability of the United States to shape outcomes is diminishing. Time is running out. Because none of the operations conducted by U.S. and Allied forces are fundamentally changing the conditions encouraging the violence, U.S. forces seem to be caught in a mission that has no foreseeable end.
Because of the role and responsibility of the United States, and the commitments our government has made, the United States has special obligations. Mr. President, if you're still with us, our country must address as best as possible the world's many problems. The United States has long-term relationships and interests at stake in the world and needs to stay engaged.
Respectfully submitted... .

Paul Greenberg is a nationally syndicated columnist.

What do you propose the US do in Iraq and the Middle East in general, au?

InfraBlue
Bush has put us in an untenable position. In other words no matter which way we turn we are F*#ked.
My first inclination is to pull our troops out of harms way and let the Iraqi's duke it out. They are after all the ones in the long run who must decide, conciliation and peace or civil war and slaughter. However, is that the right thing to do? probably not. Frankly I have no idea what the right course of action is. And neither does anyone else.

Why wouldn't letting the Iraqis settle the conflict among themselves be the right thing to do? One of the problems in Iraq is the very democratically elected government--which is dominated by the Shia majority and the resource rich Kurds--that has so far refused any kind of oil revenue sharing deal with the non-oil producing regions which happen to be regions dominated by Sunni Iraqis. A bill has been drafted that would distribute oil revenues among Iraq's regions according to population. It may still get derailed by sectarian squabbling in their parliament however. Until the Iraqis sort these kinds of problems out among themselves the US has no business backing that government that as of now is discriminating against its resource poor minority population.

Infrablue, You touched on the "only" solution available to the Iraqis; it's political. They have the responsibility to create a political agreement to share the assets of their country - as a democracy.

Some pundits keep saying that our desertion of Iraq will create more conflict. If that's what the Iraqis want, there's no way anybody from the outside can change that determination on the parts of Iraqis. Sectarian violence has gone on for over 1300 years. It's up to them to find some common ground. All other "fears" are academic, and we only prolong sacrificing our men and women for a cause that cannot be solved from the outside.

Bush and some of his supporters still think we can have success in Iraq. They have ignored all the facts on the ground, our loss of men and women, and our treasure while violence increases almost dailiy.

How do they expect to have success when the Iraqis themselves are not willing?

But is it the right thing to do.Pull out and leave them high and dry. I don't thnk so. At least not untill we have helped train and equip their forces. Remember, like it or not the US made the bed that they are sleeping in. No doubt the final solution will be in the hands of the Iraqi's But we should at least give them a fighting chance at success.

au, We are training and supplying them with equipment. The major problem with this scenario is the simple fact that these same trained and equipped Iraqis are using that training and equipment to kill their own.

When they solve this problem, there might be a chance at reducing the killing in Iraq. Until then, we're just exacerbating their problems.

CI.

So what do you advocate? The US Should pack up,lock,stock and barrel and leave immediately? Sounds good to me until I remember we the US is the author of the catastrope in Iraq.

Until the Iraqi's themselves make the decision to end the fighting nothing is going to change. Saddan was bad, granted, but if you look Iraq today it's in worse shape.

I feel we have to give the Iraqi government say six months to get up and running, that includes the Police, Military and Governmental Departments. If not then they are on their own.

To gain freedom they have to want it, it's not something you are given.

Pack up and leave is not a bad option when considered from the past performance of Bushco. At this stage of the game, even the experts are at a loss for a viable solution. If you're expecting me to provide a solution, you're not going to get one, but pack up and leave sounds like the most sane decision at this point. Why sacrifice more of our men and women and treasure for a unknown future/solution?

If the violence and instabliity spreads to other countries, the internaional community will be forced to get involved rather than sitting on the sidelines. That's a good thing.

It has been reported that Saudi Arabia and several of the Sunni dominated nations will be stepping into the fray at least with economic support and I suppose arms to assure that the majority Shia in Iraq do not turn it into a Sunni killing zone.should the US pull it's troops. I wonder how long it will be before the middle east blows up. With Shia fighting Sunni's throughout the region.

If they're hell-bent to have that war, there is no way the US alone can stop it.

Oh yeah, the international community will get involved just as they have in Dafur and elsewhere. Ho, Ho. Ho. Yes Elizabeth there is a Santa Claus.

The other option which is untenable is the US alone to try to fix it. That's also impossible. That George W Bush failed to gain international support is based on his style of governance. "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists." Not too smart.

Gulf states weigh nuclear program

By Hassan M. Fattah Published: December 11, 2006


MANAMA, Bahrain: The leaders of six Gulf countries have announced that they intend jointly to develop nuclear energy capability, sparking new concerns of an impending nuclear race in the oil-rich Gulf just as the international community considers imposing sanctions against Iran for its nuclear development efforts.

Members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which concluded a two-day summit meeting in Riyadh on Sunday, ordered a feasibility study to investigate the development of a joint atomic energy program between the predominantly Sunni Arab states, mimicking Iran's nuclear energy program and sending a message that the Arab states would seek to match Tehran's nuclear power if they were forced to.

The council is made up of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.

Publicly, officials said the program was intended to meet the voracious demand for electricity in the region, despite its huge oil reserves, which power everything from electricity generation to water desalination.

"Nuclear technology is an important technology to have for generating power, and the Gulf states will need it equally," Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said at the conclusion of the summit meeting.




Privately, analysts and officials said the announcement was meant to send a blunt message to the United States and Europe that the Arab states would enter the nuclear race if Iran was allowed to continue developing its program. A report by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group last week called on the United States to open negotiations with Iran and to seek help in stabilizing Iraq.

"The message is that the Gulf countries will develop their own nuclear program if Iran is rewarded with the terms of the Baker-Hamilton report," said Abdulaziz Sager, chairman of the Gulf Research Center in Dubai. "They are trying to say that if the Iranian program They are trying to say that if the Iranian program continues, you will require us to become nuclear-capable, too."

Another notch on Bush's legacy.

Bush wants $100 billion more for wars, report says
POSTED: 7:03 p.m. EST, December 13, 2006
Story Highlights• NEW: Report says Pres. Bush wants $100 billion more for Iraq, Afghanistan
• Congress already had appropriated about $379 billion for the war in Iraq
• Congress approved $70 billion for wars in the current fiscal year
• Report accuses Republicans of causing long-term damage with overspending link

The American People spoke at the last election to tell our government that Iraq has been mismanaged, and they want change. If the democrats vote for that extra 100 billion to extend the war to "stay the course," those same democrats will be out at the next election cycle.

Top Democrats rebuff calls to cut off war funds
By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 6, 2006


Top Democrats in Congress are ignoring calls from within their caucus to eliminate funding for troops in Iraq, a strategy some say is necessary to end U.S. involvement in the war.
"There is only one way in which the United States will withdraw from Iraq prior to the end of President Bush's term," said Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat. "Congress must vote to cut off funds."
Democratic leaders flatly rejected the idea yesterday, insisting they will move to "change the course" of the war but will continue to appropriate money to support the troops fighting in Iraq. The Democrats won back the House and Senate leadership in large part with staunch opposition to the Iraq war, but many worry that cutting off funding would seem unpatriotic.
"My only real comment is you have to support the troops," incoming House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton said about the Kucinich proposal. The Missouri Democrat initially supported the war but now wants gradual troop withdrawal.
Mr. Kucinich is trying to convince his colleagues that resolutions to withdraw troops have no legal effect as long as the president receives appropriations to continue the war. He said Congress must "force a new direction" in Iraq.
"Even a substantial reduction of funds could leave open the door for a legal claim that Congress still intends to keep troops in Iraq," said Mr. Kucinich, a Democratic presidential contender in 2004.
Several members of the Out of Iraq Caucus support a less drastic measure to end war funding.
Rep. Jim McGovern, Massachusetts Democrat, said his plan would send "a signal that our occupation has to end." It would cut off most funding but leave money for the "safe and orderly" withdrawal of troops, economic recovery and international peacekeeping.
Mr. McGovern's proposal has 18 co-sponsors. Mr. Kucinich's plan, which has not surfaced in the form of a bill, has received no endorsement.
Party leaders instead favor setting conditions on appropriations.
"As long as our troops are in harm's way, Democrats will be there to support them," said House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi of California. "We will not cut off funding for the troops."
Democrats downplayed intraparty divisions. "No matter how you look at it, there is a consensus this war needs to end," Mr. McGovern said.


Page 1 of 2 next » http://washingtontimes.com/national/20061205-105011-7761r.htm