The Howler Monkeys of the Neocon Right obviously do not like the Iraq Study Group Report, beginning with the very first stunning sentence: GÇ£The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating.GÇ¥ The brassy hostility is so widespread we can only conclude it likely reflects the sentiments of RoveGÇÖs back oval office at the White House. On the other hand, Senator Gordon H. Smith (R-Oregon), a heretofore silent soldier in the robotic Congressional army of Bush adulators, was reported in the New York Times of 8 December as saying boldly in the Senate chamber that GÇ£we have no business being a policeman in someone elseGÇÖs civil war... it may even be criminal... I am sick of the status quo and there is a GOP ally pushing for change.GÇ¥Those expecting a bland bipartisan mishmash from the Iraq Study Group were obviously shocked. The report seemed an unlikely government document: short, precise, to-the-point, including helpful maps and data, like a good term paper whose authors obviously doubted the basic knowledge of their recipient (why else such careful maps?). Subsequent reactions significantly revealed whose ox has been gored. The co-chairs specifically requested that the ReportGÇÖs proposals be undertaken as a whole, and President Bush immediately announced he was sure they did not mean thatGÇö the Washington Post headlined his comments as GÇ£Bush to Cherry Pick...GÇ¥ just as he has been doing to legislation with his signing statementsGÇö or, chillingly, the original intelligence reports on Iraq and Saddam.
Some analysts, like David Sanger, say the Report pits James Baker and his world view against that of Condoleezza Rice, forcing Bush to choose. Various Bush minions sneered that James Baker is ancient history, out of touch with today, and his advice is worthless. Baker proposes diplomacy with carrot and stick to bring Syria and Iran into a negotiated settlement to stabilize Iraq, while Rice apparently intends to isolate Syria and Iran, GÇ£capitalizing on the fearsGÇ¥ of our traditional allies, Sunni countries like Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and promoting the establishment of democracy in Iraq and Lebanon. The ISG Report does not mention promoting democracy, only preserving the integrity of Iraq as a country. Dennis Ross, who left the State Department early in the Bush administration, says bluntly, GÇ£This administration has never had a negotiatorGÇÖs mind-set. It divides the world into friends and foes.GÇ¥ Is Mr. Baker really speaking for DubyaGÇÖs father, and will this trigger unfortunate psychological reactions from the Decider? The Howler Monkeys dismiss GÇ£rewarding bad behaviorGÇ¥ by any negotiating with members of the Axis of Evil. They feel Syria and Iran prefer an unstable Iraq, and want to continue fishing in troubled waters. Baker says, Maybe, but youGÇÖll never know if negotiations will work until you try.
Juan Cole, [writing in salon.com http//www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/12/08/bush_ing_shiites/print] asks will Bush continue to choose his old friends in Iraq, the Shiites, or will he reach out to the Sunnis (and the Saudis) as the ISG suggests? According to Cole, insiders say that Bush regards the two Shiite leaders (Prime Minister al-Maliki and al-Hakim of the Iranian-backed SCIRI) as GÇ£our guys,GÇ¥ whatever that means. He has had special private meetings with each, and al-Hakim has come out strongly against the ISG report. The new buzz word is GÇ£reconciliation,GÇ¥ meaning the onus is on the Iraqis to get together and stop fighting each other, or weGÇÖll quit.
On the other hand, the ISG and Maliki do agree with parts of the ISG recommendations, like turning over security to the Iraqi Army and withdrawing American troops. And do not forget that Dick Cheney was abruptly summoned to Saudi Arabia recentlyGÇö what was that all about? DonGÇÖt James Baker and Bush senior have a long, cozy, and lucrative history with the Saudis? Greg Palast , in an on-line article entitled GÇ£Stay Half the Course,GÇ¥ believes King Abdullah told Cheney in Riyadh that if America pulls out their troops from Iraq, the Saudis will increase sending money and materiel to the Sunni insurgents (which help, of course, is paid for by the SaudiGÇÖs oil revenuesGÇö from America, so weGÇÖre paying for both sides of the not-civil war). Is that why Baker proposes withdrawing only half our troops, and embedding the rest into Iraqi units for training purposes? Palast asks, isnGÇÖt the Iraqi Army so infiltrated by Shiite militias that it is not a national Army but rather an arm of the more radical Shiite militias? WouldnGÇÖt that be a pretty dangerous and useless place to be GÇ£embedded?GÇ¥ And, ultimately, ineffective?
ALTERNATIVE PATHS
On another front, Robin Wright and Peter Baker, in the Washington Post, insist that the Bush administration internally is frantically developing three alternatives to the ISG report:
1) Stay the course with a short-term GÇ£surgeGÇ¥ (another new buzz word) of 15,000-30,000 troopsGÇö that is the maximum availableGÇö mainly to try to secure Baghdad and accelerate training of Iraqis.
2) Re-direct US forces to focus on hunting terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda, letting the Sunnis and Shiites duke it out on their own.
3) The 80 percent solution, advocated supposedly by Cheney, which says support the majority Shiites (and Kurds) who are 80 percent of the population, and forget the Sunnis entirely as a waste of time. How this jibes with CheneyGÇÖs talk with King Abdullah is not clear. John McCain loudly advocates a huge increase in troops, but truthfully, no one takes this seriously: where will the troops magically come from? He seems to be laying groundwork for his 2008 presidential run, doing a CYA.
Then, there is the Israel-Palestinian problem, plus of course Lebanon, where Bush has steadfastly refused to negotiate, and which Baker insists must be addressed if peace and stability are ever to be achieved in the Middle East. The Israeli government and AIPAC strongly dispute BakerGÇÖs recommendations. Other Jewish leaders suggest that negotiation and establishment of a Palestinian state is fundamental to lowering tensions and de-fusing anti-Americanism, and Rabbi Michael Lerner says that GÇ£the only real protection for a small country like Israel is to have good relations with its neighbors.GÇ¥
IGNORED PARTS OF THE ISG REPORT
Lost amid all the cacophony are six other findings of the ISG, any of which can come up and bite us. Media Matters identifies these ignored items as:
1) Pentagon has significantly under-reported the violence in Iraq; example: one day in July, 93 attacks were reported, but a GÇ£careful review... brought to light 1,100.GÇ¥
2) Severe lack of trained cultural analysts means that GÇ£after three-and-a-half years, the United States does not have an adequate grasp on the political and military threat to American men and women stationed there.GÇ¥
3) Rapidly deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan may require an abrupt transfer of American troops back to that country, and the only place they can come from is Iraq; if the Taliban establishes itself in some part of Afghanistan, this will GÇ£give al-Qaeda the political space to conduct terrorist operations.GÇ¥ 4) Lack of fluent Arab speakers (in an embassy with 1,000, only 33 speak Arabic, and only six of those are truly fluent) means we are flying blind most of the time, intelligence goes untranslated, we are unable to communicate effectivelyGÇö how can you train Iraqis, even if you are embedded, if you cannot communicate?
5) The US is considering breaking its compact with the National Guard and Reserves that there is a limit to the number of years these citizen-soldiers can be deployed; other sources give a depressing picture of worn-out equipment and declining combat effectiveness of both regulars and National Guard.
6) Spending on Iraq has had little or no scrutiny because almost every appropriation has been made off-budget as an GÇ£emergency supplemental appropriationGÇ¥ which bypasses the normal review and therefore erodes budget discipline and accountability.
Whew! Way to go, Dubya.
WHAT IS A PROGRESSIVE TO DO?
What will be the Democratic response? We await the PresidentGÇÖs GÇ£decision,GÇ¥ to be announced around the 18th of December, the idea being that this is the executiveGÇÖs job. ShouldnGÇÖt the Democrats have a coherent standard by which to judge his decision? Remember, they will hold the purse strings for any future actions now that they control Congress. What does the Progressive Community think? Should we support the ISG Report in its entirety, since much of it reflects Jim WebbGÇÖs previous thinking? Or, specific parts, and if so, which? Should we link an Israeli-Palestinian solution to the rest of the negotiations about Iraq? Or, what about the eighty per cent solution? What about the six ignored (or under-discussed) items in the ISG Report, especially number 6, about paying for the Iraq war?
Some of the most vicious attacks I think are in response to a couple factors:
1. It presents a credible narrative that raises serious questions about G.W.'s management of the war. Administration defenders are doing everything they can to discredit the report as a whole in order to protect the "Just War" narrative that GW has been pushing.
2. The ISG report undercuts hawkish elements inside Israel by advocating diplomacy with Israel's avowed enemies--Syria and Iran--and by suggesting that the Israelis should ceede the Golan Heights. I should add that I am "Pro-Israel" in the sense that I view Israel as a key ally in the region. However, I think there are elements within our government, and especially within the White House, who have fallen into lock-step with one element--the hardliners--inside Israel. I think we are doing so at both the peril of U.S. and Israeli interests. The U.S. is no longer viewed as an honest broker as far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is concerned.
I am not optimistic about the President's "New" plan--I think he has lost credibility across the board on this issue. I suspect the real debates will begin in January.
I am anxious to see what Senators Webb, Warner, and Hagel recommend.
I am still dumbfounded that we have not made a serious push to reduce our dependence on oil. I think there is a very real chance that we are going to have to get involved in the Middle East militarily again one way or another in the not-so-distant future (5 to 10 years). Our dependence on oil dependence is a serious liability as it relates to the Middle East, Venezuala, Russia, and indirectly to China. This element of a national strategy has never been treated with the appropriate level of seriousness. Drilling in the Arctic is not a long-term answer.
Regarding all the rats abandoning ship (like Oregon's Smith and some others): As Steve Benen (at The Carpetbagger Report) points out, all of them are up for re-election in '08 and the ISG report provided the much-needed "pivot" on which to swing 180deg. That's the only reason for their "road to Damascus" moment.
"When in worry, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout."
20,000 more troops to go into an area, clean it up and then retreat back to base. What a bunch of idiots. The more I learn the more I am sure the next president will be the one getting us out of Iraq. If its a woman, watch out. The heads will roll. Woman have no mercy when their children(troops) are in danger.
The Whitehouse effort to flank the ISG report was the final straw for me. The situation requires a bold initiative. I agree with Jim Webb that Congress should not direct the tactical methodology of the military, but rather the management of the effort through the Executive. Hopefully his recent dust up with Dubya shows a willingness to get out in front on this thing.
It is time to put Impeachment on the table. And that includes Cheney. We are not just losing Iraq, we are losing the entire Moslem world. America's interests are being damaged worldwide. Bush needs to be refocused on the national interest, or he should be challenged for his authority. Ambivalence and weakness in the face of the Whitehouse, and Republican deadenders will only bring ruin for the new majority. Bush is at 32% approval, and 2/3 of Americans say we are losing Iraq.
Drive! The November elections were about finding a solution to the Iraq mess, and that means any measure necessary to require that the Whitehouse put America before their own pride. Get it right Bush, or face a subpoena to Congress.
Dubya (and, indeed, most Americans) cannot grasp that what we do is not done in a vacuumn and has consequences. It may not be our choice what happens next. The American Conservative Magazine this month has an interesting article on How to Lose An Army: decide to bomb Iran (whether we do it or Israel, we will be held responsible), then Iran uses its not inconsiderable military in conjunction with inspired southern Shiite militias out of Basra to cut our single supply line to Kuwait, whence comes almost all the logistical support for our troops in Iraq--- including, by the way, gasoline, which is in short supply in Iraq, believe it or not. Our "mightiest military machine the world has ever known" is suddenly unable to operate, and Iran now has 140,000 hostages. Air power is stymied by dust storms and bad weather, so forget that beloved bombing option.
Bush and the neo-cons never seem to think more than one move ahead. 140,000 American mother's sons and daughters trapped. What do you think will happen then?
I think the guesstimates are that the Iranians are about 5 to 10 years away from having a bomb, so there's a pretty good chance that are troop levels will be below 140,000 by then. (Assuming that an attack against Iran isn't levelled within the next 2 to 3 years).
Realistically though, I do not see how we can pull all of our forces out of the region and still maintain the oil supply (which takes us back to the oil dependence question).
I have been curious about what would happen if we were to pull our forces back to Kuwait and Jordan.
My sense is that the states in the Middle East would begin waging a proxy war against one another in Iraq--which would sap their resources. In the meantime the U.S. could enter at a later point, when the sides to greater effect when sides are weakened; we could simply sit on the sidelines altogether; or altneratively we could only get involved insofar as Al Qaeda. The human costs would be pretty devastating to the region, but the sense that I have is that this may be inevitable.
Anyway you cut it is going to be a mess. Which brings us back again to oil. This is the one element of the equation that is within our control. Why aren't we treating this part of the equation with the appropriate level of seriousness? (Rhetorical question--a different president, less beholden to oil interests, would probably take a much bolder course of action on this front).
Now I am really pissed. John McCain just sent me a fund raising letter for "Environmental Defense Action Fund". Wanting any where from $15 on up and he will send Webb and Warner a petition letter. How dumb do these ass holes think we are. We in VA know where Webb and Warner stand, it is jerks like him running for President that come out of a six year blinders and support Bush campaign and he has the nerve to send out a fund raising letter and to me. You all know what kind of letter they will recieve.
Perhaps the Democrats should latch on to the timeline, and not blindly accept the Administration's insistence such strict guidelines with dates is--- unworkable? counterproductive? anti-American? Whatever.
In any case, the milestones can return some measure of control and oversight to Congress, and would be a good weapon in the hands of Progressives which, if not employed, will let us slide along and "stay the course" with a few photo-op twitches and no real changes.
What was particularly disconcerting was the talk about troop build-ups--e.g. increasing numbers from 20,000 to possibly 40,000 by increasing troop rotations from 12 to 15 months (talk about a sure-fire way to kill morale). How will 40,000 troops be able to secure the 40% of Iraq that is currently in the midst of a civil war?
It is clear that even after the ISG report, GWB and Co. seem to view this as a problem that can be resolved militarily by the U.S. The ISG makes it abundantly clear that diplomacy is the only way to produce a sustained long-term resolution to the Iraq fiasco.
Unfortunately, I see no signs right now that the "New Diplomatic Offensive" is going to be taken by this administration. We are certainly not going to hit the December 30th deadline. Instead it looks like we are going to continue dealing with the diplomatic issue in a "piece-meal" manner, which means that we will have not be able to successfully leverage Iran.
The inept diplomatic side of the GWB equation is what really ticks me off. This is one of the levers that all governments--especially powerful ones like the U.S. have as an available tool--and we are not using it with any degree of effectiveness. Very frustrating.
The U.S. needs to adopt the ISG diplomatic strategy. Keep in mind it was guys like Baker who not only helped to unify the region against Sadaam in the first Gulf War, but he did so in a way that actually resulted in a net financial gain for the U.S. (while also boosting our credibility). This is what a skilled diplomat is capable of doing. No one in the upper levels of this adminstration seems to have these skills. How can a nation be a world leader absent these skills? What a shame.
I haven't heard a clear repudiation of the diplomatic strategy yet. Just a lot of cheap shots taken at the report's authors.
LTEs might make a difference. There is also value in keeping the ISG report a featured item on blogs going forward.
This is definitely a story worth following.
Bush all but made Robb eat dirt to sit on that committee. What choice did Robb have? Still some folks on the left didn't take to kindly to it, but the way it looks from this armchair is that Robb did what was necessary to maintain continuity and it couldn't have been easy. One payoff was that Robb was the only individual on both the ICC and the ISG. More continuity.
Now Robb speaks up a little. Why? And if it weren't for that opinion piece, I would have just kept my fuzzy thoughts to myself.
Robb's just one guy. How much of ISG report is "signaling" and how much actual plan. A number of critical factors, maybe deciding factors, are not subject to public scrutiny right now. There's an entire layer, several of them actually, about which we know very little. For example, what's really going on with our relationship with Saudi Arabia?
This diary on DK is all over the place. I can't imagine George Allen figuring into any of that.
Still very confused..
Could you spell out the continuity aspect of Robb's involvement with the ICC and ISG? Continuity in what respect? ("continuity" as in he is building a case against GWB?)
In reference to Robb's recent comments in the VA Pilot, at least on its face it seems like he was doing what every other member of the ISG was doing (trying to sell the ISG Iraq Plan--nothing too unusual). The mention of his forthcoming book seemed like a standard pitch as a "teaser" for a soon to be published work. Of course, that doesn't mean that there isn't something else going on.
Is the ISG report a signal for GWB, perhaps a veiled threat that he needs to get his [blank] in order, or else?
Interesting post.
Shortly after criticism surrounding Katrina we saw -
October 3 - nomination of Harriet Meirs for the Supreme Court
October 4 - press conference on martial law as an answer to avian flu
Craziness. There's an earlier (Sep 25) indicator earlier indicator on the militarization.
The other question, of course, I asked, was, is there a circumstance in which the Department of Defense becomes the lead agency. Clearly, in the case of a terrorist attack, that would be the case, but is there a natural disaster which -- of a certain size that would then enable the Defense Department to become the lead agency in coordinating and leading the response effort. That's going to be a very important consideration for Congress to think about.
This isn't looking for optimal ways to respond to natural disasters, it's looking at natural disaster as opportunity to concentrate power.