Iraq Study Group
I can vaguely understand the point of putting together blue ribbon commissions like the ISG in order to deliver solutions from a source that seems above politics. I get that.
But doesn’t the whole exercise severely undermine one’s faith in our entire national security and foreign policy apparatus? I mean, presumably, we pay a large number of highly expert persons quite well to conduct these affairs, and yet, a group of ex-politicians is supposed to be able to take several weeks, compile some data, and tell us what to do next? Isn’t the best course of action something our very expensive Departments of Defense and State are supposed to be able to provide?
I think the ISG is exhibit A in favor of libertarianism.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:00 am
Well, if the best solution that the smartest, wisest people in the country can offer is “we’re stumped,” which is how I read this report, maybe it’s time to get some new smartest, wisest people.
The problem is, as it has been, a lack of will to do what needs to be done. Either (a) Fix the region - and yep, it’s clear now this may require some form of benevolent colonialism/imperialism; or, (b) get the hell out, retreat behind the gates, let the bloodthirsty fools fill pools, cisterns and wells with the blood of their innumerous (and likely innumerate) enemies, and if we in the west have a manipulation of the oil supply, or hear so much as a WMD-scented peep out of the region, start lobbing bombs at presidential palaces and other bits of infrastructure.
Choice a would necessitate more war, and the continued loss of U.S. and indigenous life. Choice b would necessitate a crash program toward energy independence, and a willingness to spill blood that America probably doesn’t possess.
The choice being kinda sorta bandied about by the ISG is Cut & Walk, which solves nothing.
December 7th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
The ISG work product, like the 9/11 Commission Report, is nothing more than a political document. Perhaps it makes Dems and some Republicans feel better about abandoning the mission of securing the peace in Iraq (the political cover theory). Yes, it is a mess but I think a military solution is the best hope for bringing long term stability. A diplomatic approach in that region is certain to fail as the parties (mainly Iran and Syria) are untrustworthy if not irrational. W seems inclined to ignore the idea of making nice with Iran/Syria and more inclined to listen to the Pentagon. I’m with the Prez on this one. I can’t imagine the pressure he’s under to cave in.
Oh, and a reminder….it is Pearl Harbor Day. It’s a good time to reflect on that as well as 9/11.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Making nice with Iran and Syria is like putting lipstick on before your ‘prison husband’ sells you to the guy they call ‘Tiny’ for a pack of Marlboros. Pretty up the transaction all you want, we still know what it really is.
Baker is actually talking about letting Iran develop nukes in exchange for Iran stopping sending IEDs into Iraq and stopping its orchestration of Shiite violence. I guess we may get a chance to test that theory so prevalent on the left, that Iran is sane, and basically comparable to the Soviets during the Cold War. Good thing nothing is at stake…
December 7th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Two references above to Iran and/or Syria being (possibly) irrational. I’m curious which of their past actions supports such a view. It’s like the claim that Saddam was “a madman.” What have they done that was so crazy? Keep in mind that amoral, murderous (even genocidal), and playing to your domestic audience don’t count as insane.
Sanity doesn’t mean they’d be good negotiating partners — we may have nothing to offer they’d want. I’m just wondering about the crazy label.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Sorry, Muskrat. I meant insane by western terms. As in “marching 100,000 or so children across mine fields, in lieu of training up a few battalions of combat engineers to remove mines, is simply batsh1t insane.” Or, “a surprise artillery attack flattening one of your own cities where a handful of political opponents live, killing 10,000 people, is simply nuts.”
What I really should have written, was “killing thousands, or tens of thousands needlessly, is insane by western standards, but pretty much standard business practice in Syria and Iran, and when we think about them as reasonable parties we can negotiate with, we should keep in mind that, given the chance, they would likely consider inflicting similar casualties on the U.S. if there was some negotiating advantage to be gained from it. Thus we should probably be prepared to kill lots of them, or for them to kill lots of us, and to be ready to write off the casualties as just part of the cost of negotiating with our new partners for peace from the Axis of Not-as-Bad-as-we-First-Thought-Because-We-Shouldn’t-Have-Expected-Them-to-Act-Civilized-to-Begin-With.
What the hell, we’re getting ready to let Iran strangle both Lebanon and Iraq, with the bloodbath that will entail. If we’re going to be cynical realists, might as well let them build nukes, or even encourage them to do so and realize a profit from it, providing they only promise to nuke other people - like say the
JewsIsraelis, non-Hezbollah Lebanese, or the Europeans. Hey, if we’re going to play realism, (1) let’s not try to convince ourselves they are going to take any action that’s not in their best immediate tactical interest; and (2) let’s not try to convince ourselves that we have any stomach, politically, for any foreign affairs activity that is anything other than cheap, easy, and relatively pleasant to look at on TV every night during news broadcasts.December 7th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Insanity is a function of not being able to deal with reality.
Saddam believed he could best the US in a military conflict. He repeatedly provoked the US by firing on fighters carrying out a UN mission (let’s face it folks the war *started* in Kuwait and the cease-fire never took hold). Saddam was crazy. He could not win.
Russian and the US held back WMD usage. Both sides wanted the genie inside the bottle and only rattled sabers. Russia talked about starting a *revolution* in the US. The US talked about starting a *revolution* in the USSR. Neither side was committed to wiping anybody off the map. In being genocidal is considered crazy. Iran is crazy.
Syria is a county with a GDP not much greater than Ecuador based mainly on oil revenue. In a war with the US oil exports could be cut off overnight. Yet, they insist on supporting terrorists groups that anger the US. They could have their economy crushed, but they want to push anyway. That is not rational behavior. The *only* reason Syria is still around is that they know how fluff Putin the Poisoner. Syria is evil. Syria may not be crazy because of Putin. I still don’t want to negotiate with them because I don’t believe they would do it in good faith.
December 7th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
“if the best solution that the smartest, wisest people in the country can offer is “we’re stumped,” which is how I read this report, maybe it’s time to get some new smartest, wisest people.”
There are no ‘best’ solutions to Bush’s blunder; and the idea of retreating ‘behind the gates’ won’t work because we opened the ‘gates’ when we invaded (meaning we’re responsible for the pandemonium we created) and pulling the covers over our heads won’t make it go away. And lobbing bombs at presidential palaces won’t work unless a single dictator in a feeble county like Lybia lives there; it didn’t work when the Germans bombed England in WWII and it certainly didn’t work in Iraq (we bombed the crap out of their infrastructure, and look at what we got for it) and it won’t work in Iran, or in Syria either.
Becoming energy independent is a big chunk of the answer, whether we Cut & Walk or Stay & Minuet, but don’t count on it happening in your lifetime..
December 7th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
Hey, guess what, Jay. Bush didn’t put is in the Middle East. ARAMCO did. That was maybe 70 years ago. Now we’re in. Every retreat will be met with problems, every advance will be met with problems. And just as soon as you’re willing to walk, or ride a bike with gum rubber tires to work and the store, we can get out of the ME. Bush’s failure to execute is only the latest in a long line of half-assed, not-as-much-as-is-needed U.S. efforts over there.
Like I said, the real way out is through the region, either via some benevolent form of imperialism, or by flattening everybody who purports to pose a threat to the Western way of life, as well as anybody standing in their immediate vicinity. Either fix it or flatten it. Half measures will only produce more nasty surprises for us, which our decadent selves will react to with more mere half measures…
December 8th, 2006 at 12:33 am
“Either fix it or flatten it.”
Neither of those suggestions are feasible.
December 8th, 2006 at 12:38 am
The real problem is we (American citizens and politicians) don’t have the political will to do what’s really necessary. We’re fighting this war like Vietnam (shudder) in that we’re not really committed, the country hasn’t fully bought into the rational, and so the political class is not willing to take the risks of a full-on assault and imposed American rule in Iraq.
Sadly, we don’t have enought national pride to want a victory. We’ve completely lost the meaning of “I win, you lose”. Blame it on liberalism, feminism, whatever, but until we decide the winning, kicking butt and taking names, is the only way to get ourselves out of Iraq, we’ll continue to have these retread politicians seeking one more shot at the spotlight. They will continue to espouse the obvious, and we’ll end up going nowhere.
I want to see 400k troops and bigger bombs, and let’s stop this rinky-dink method of fighting, and start killing people and breaking things. That’s what war is about, so since we’re there, let’s do it right.
December 8th, 2006 at 1:53 am
-Yes, the leaders and people of the Middle East are out of their minds. Islam, take a big bow!
-Yes, the administration is incompetent, from top to bottom, in getting us into this mess.
-No, POTUS doesn’t need a blue ribbon panel. He should resign and move back to Crawford.
December 8th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
“let’s stop this rinky-dink method of fighting, and start killing people and breaking things.”
Which people should we kill? The ones we supposedly went in there to save from Saddam’s brutality?
In order for us to support a full fledged war, and carry out the kind of brutal destruction you’re suggesting, there has to be moral justification to do so.
What moral justification do you see for slaughtering another hundred thousand or so Iraqis? They didn’t attack us on 9/11. They didn’t support the 9/11 terrorists. They didn’t and don’t have nukes. And they’re not planning to invade us anytime soon.