Iraq Study Group blasts Iraqi government

The long awaited report has some surprises

Published on December 6, 2006 By Draginol In War on Terror

The Iraq Study Group report is finally out.

It's a bit surprising in a few areas. First, it doesn't suggest that the US needs to exit immediately but rather that over the course of the next year the US should transition to a more supporting role of training Iraqi forces. Then, after that, the troops should come home -- ready or not.

It also advocates talks with Iran and Syria. James Baker makes the case that the US had regular talks with the Soviet Union for 40 years even though their stated objective was to wipe us out.

But the part that really struck me was the analysis of the Iraqi government. They unanimously concluded that the Iraqi government is just incompetent. So incompetent that they have serious concerns of whether it will be capable -- given any amount of time -- to effectively govern the country. They have good intentions but lack the capability to governm.

I have to say I support everything I've read about the report so far. To me, this 3 year disaster should have ended 2 years ago. Our goal was to eliminate the regime of Saddam Hussein. That was accomplished 3 years ago.

Why are we still there? It's not our job to make sure Iraq is turned into a Jeffersonian democracy. I get the reaosn they want to. I even support a reasonable effort. But 3 years? If the Iraqis can't get their act together soon, then tough.

The options for the US aren't merely either a Jeffersonian democracy or a terrorist state. The option isn't even something in between. We toppled a fairly powerful regime in a matter of weeks with few combat deaths. The US should have a policy of knocking down regimes that support terrorism and represent threats to the United States. It should not be our policy to spend year after year trying to rebuild these countries unless it's demonstratably in our best interest.

This time next year, the troops better start coming home -- or at least out of Iraq.

Comments (Page 2)

COL Gene

on Dec 07, 2006

greywar

No! I am sad to see how the sacrifice of so many brave Americans Troops has been wasted by their Commander-in-Chief. This did not need to happen if only Bush had listened to those that were far more knowledgeable and wiser then he. This is what happens when an arrogant and unqualified man becomes the leader of the world’s most powerful country! This will be the major aspect of the Bush legacy-- What a truly sad result of such brave sacrifice!

Dr Guy

on Dec 07, 2006

Iran hasn't threw down any regime - yet. As opposed to USA,

So we empower them to do so? Is that what you are advocating?

Want to guess the first one?

Rightwinger

on Dec 07, 2006

The Iraq Surrender Group is noticeably lacking in one area: people who know first-hand about the war and its progress and effect.
Vernon Jordan and Sanra Day O'Connor? Please. Let me ask my wife and next door neighbor and see what they say. Then I'll submit my report to the President.

Talking with the Soviets had one major advantage that talking with the Iranians does not: the Soviets were not religious maniacs who viewed us through the prism of their bloodthirsty religion's call for our complete destruction.
The Soviets had nukes, yes, of course; and they opposed us and worked toward our removal.
But then, they did not want to die in the millions in the course of that removal.
The Iranian leadership looks forward to dying, getting their 72 virgins and spreading a little global chaos and misery, and.....maybe.....bringing back the prophesied 12th Imam. They also would not seem to mind if a few million of their people died, too. After all, Allah probably has an unlimited supply of virgins.

Iraq is just one aspect of what is actually a wider war that's been going on for decades, and will only continue to worsen until we're destroyed or they are.
If Bush follows the group's recommendations and pulls our troops out of Iraq, this war will follow us home, believe me. With no reason to fight Americans there, they'll start to come here.
But, when we start seeing burning cars, buses and exploding Pizza Huts, McDonalds and Wal Marts down on Main Street, USA, people like ColGene will see only Bush's failure and incompetence, not the failure and incompetence of the Peace at any Price Democrats, the Iraq Group, and the liberal peacenik crowd; hell, none of them would take the blame, anyway. Nope. Only Bush. He'll be the one they point the finger at.

bakerstreet

on Dec 07, 2006

"Iran hasn't threw down any regime - yet. As opposed to USA, which has quite a few under it's belly, some of them even democraticly elected leader to replace them with military dictartorship."

So your assertion is if you see someone trying to kill someone else, it is best to wait until the deed is done to act, because before that they aren't murderers. Sounds like a sound moral plan so long as you don't ask the opinion of the murdered. I seem to recall a lot of derision about the US sitting by so long and watching Germany do what they did before we got around to entering the war.

"I haven't said that Iran isn't involved. You're quite intellectually dishonest to make me say things I haven't. But that's a trend I see quite often on this forum."

As intellectually dishonest as pretending nations like Iran aren't interested in destabilizing other nations in the Middle East? Come on. Now you backpeddle and claim it only counts once they are successful. You want to talk about intellectual honesty?

citahellion

on Dec 07, 2006

Sure, it's in our best interest to have a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq. But only to a point. My threshold is 4.5 years. That's how long US troops will have been nation building come end of next year.

May I ask how you arrived at such a specific figure? What is it about 4.5 years that makes you say "This much, and no more!"?

Cikomyr

on Dec 07, 2006

I have not said that Iran is not trying to destabilize other nations in the middle east. But after all, so is the US, Israel, Russia, EU, etc..

So it's intellectually dishonest to assume that's what I beleive. It's just that Iran hasn't had the power - yet - to really throw down a regime. That does not mean we should give him a free ride at it.

Nor we should simply answer to it with the mouth of our cannons. (Répondre avec la bouche de mes cannons - Frontenac).

Talking won't solve problems overnight, but I'm sure it will be very much more productive to peace in the region than what is happening now..

Actually, Iran wanted to talk in 2003 (or at least, part of it's leadership), but the Bush adm. simply sticked an "evil" brand on them. They now hold the biggest part of the bat.. Diplomaticly, that is. USA hold all the others.

Leauki

on Dec 08, 2006

Perhaps...

1. Get Europe to tell Turkey that they can become an EU member sans Turkish Kurdistan. Kurds are not Europeans.

2. Split up Iraq and unite Iraqi and Turkish Kurdistan (under Iraqi Kurdish leadership). Withdraw all Coalition troops to Kurdistan and defend it if necessary. Also withdraw a few troops to Kuwait.

3. Get the Kurds to put pressure on Syria and advocate treatment of Syrian Kurdish territories as "occupied". Demand that Syria end her occupation of Kurdish territories whenever Syria says anything about any issues related to Lebanon or Israel.

4. Let the Shi'ites and Sunnis fight it out in the rest of Iraq, offer help to either side. Let them explain why they deserve help.

5. Get the EU and Turkey to sign a trade agreement with Kurdistan.

Done.

Bahu Virupaksha

on Dec 08, 2006

A blue ribbon Presidential Commission is set up to mke constructive and long range policy options. The Iraq Study Group was a bi partisan group and the purpose seems to have been to suggest an exit strategy that the Democrats will have to concur with. It has not said anything earthshaking and all its conclusions are common knowledge to those follwing the crisis in Iraq.

ParaTed2k

on Dec 08, 2006

A blue ribbon "bi partisan" commission that left one concept out of their intentions... victory.

They wasted 9 months coming up with a plan that would be the perfect consenses... which is to say it would use a lot of words to explain how to accomplish nothing. If this panel were convened instead of Operation Overlord (D Day), then 6 million would have been just the beginning of the final solution.

If consenses was all they were after... that group had that from the beginning. There isn't a spine to split between them.

drmiler

on Dec 08, 2006

The commission was a waste of time and taxpayer money! They (the commission) already stated they were NOT experts in this field! Once again Bahu you make broad sweeping statements without knowing the entire scope of what you're talking about.

Cikomyr

on Dec 08, 2006

Then why did they make the commission in the first place? Because those with expertise on the topic are probably biaised.

A blue ribbon "bi partisan" commission that left one concept out of their intentions... victory.

Victory is impossible. Plain impossible, thanks to the mismanagement of your all-mighty president. That is how they see it.

COL Gene

on Dec 08, 2006

ParaTed2k

The way Bush fought this war has precluded VICTORY. To achieve what Bush outlined as VICTORY may have been possible had we sent in troop levels to PREVENT the sectarian violence that is where the vast majority of the attacks originate. We could also have secured the borders and prevented foreign entry into Iraq.

Yesterday CNN had a story that claims that wealthy Sunnis in Saud Arabia are sending money to help buy arms for Sunnis who they support! That is just as bad as Iran and Syria supporting the Shiites.

The conclusion of the Iraq Study Commission that the violence in Iraq can not be resolved without the help of other countries is so true. Bush has refused to talk with Iran and Syria which will insure no real help in Iraq. Israel has objected to including their conflict which was another component of the commission recommendations.

Zoomba

on Dec 08, 2006

Regardless of progress so far, and regardless of any opinions of whether or not we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, we have a responsibility to see this through to the end. We went in and toppled a government. We tried to introduce a secular democracy into a region that has either only ever known dictatorships, theocracies or various mixes of the two. To expect the whole thing to magically come together in just a few short years isn't very realistic. It's a foreign concept being pushed on a nation that still isn't certain that we did them any favors in the first place.

When we go in to topple a government, it becomes our responsibility to stick with it and finish the job we started. If we have to fix our messes and stick with them through to completion more, perhaps we'd be less inclined to invade other countries in the first place.

Cikomyr

on Dec 08, 2006

Amen Zoomba. I think you see things the same way that I do.

HOWEVER, there is an aspect of the situation we should consider. What is the great bloodfeast that will happens (let's assume it will happen) is only delayed by the US Army's presence? However, the more the US army stays, the worst the bloodfeast will be.

It's like putting a weight on a spring to prevent it to jump. But the longer/heavier you keep the weight on the string, the higher it will jump when no one will be able to keep it there.

Noumenon72

on Dec 09, 2006

Clearly, Iran already has such a policy.

But "should" they have one, I asked? Their attempt at knocking down Saddam's regime went even worse than ours. Now they're on the verge of being invaded themselves. And they're one of the most unpopular countries around (Link), no major allies. Iran would be far more secure if it was capable of working together with regimes that are threats to it, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, or Ukraine, or Taiwan.

And of course the other angle on whether Iran or America should have this regime knock down policy is that it threatens the lives of many innocent Iranians, Americans, and Israelis. Whether it works or not is not the only thing determining whether it's good policy.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!