Iraq Study Group Report Analysis: 'Unfair, Unjust, Superficial and Insulting'
Sunday, December 10, 2006 at 05:15PM Bottom Line Up Front: "Stay the Course" is not failing; Iraqis offended by the arrogance of the Iraq Study Group Report.
The Iraq Study Group released it's long awaited report with its many suggestions to President Bush on how to change the direction in Iraq earlier this week. The Iraq Study Group is a faculty of the US Institute of Peace. What is the US Institute of Peace?
The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan, national institution established and funded by Congress. Its mission is to help:
USIP does this by empowering others with knowledge, skills, and resources, as well as by its direct involvement in peacebuilding efforts around the globe.
The "peace" agenda is basically the same whether the Iraq Study Group or Code Pink; pro-Palestinian, anti-war, pro-diplomacy and negotiating with international thugs and crooks. To be fair, the US Institute of Peace is a more honest attempt at bipartisanship, even if the result is the same. The cast of characters will be broken up into three basic groups: Good Guys (Conservative Republicans), Bad Guys (Liberal Democrats) and Questionables ("so-called" Republicans who resemble a Democrat):
THE GOOD GUYS
- Alan K. Simpson Republican, former Senator
- Edwin Meese III , Republican, Former US Attorney General
THE BAD GUYS
- Charles S. Robb, Dem, former VA Governor, known for his affair with a Miss Virginia and lying to cover it up during his governorship.
- Leon E. Panetta, Liberal Democrat and Clinton Chief of Staff.
- William J. Perry, Dem and former Sec Defense under Bill Clinton; Clinton mangled the military during his 8 years in office under the consultation of the Sec. of Defense Perry.
- Lee H. Hamilton Former Congressman, Democrat, vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission.
- Vernon E. Jordan, Jr ., Democrat, advisor and friend to Bill Clinton during his presidency who helped cover up the Monica Lewinsky scandal and tried to procure a job “elsewhere” for Lewinsky to get her away from the Oval Office; also he allegedly advised Lewinsky to lie under oath about the affair.
THE QUESTIONABLES
- James A. Baker, III originally a Dem who switched parties; moderate Republican at best
- Sandra Day O’Connor , Former Supreme Court Justice, Republican whose rulings and votes resemble Democrat positions more often than not
- Lawrence S. Eagleburger , Republican, but not a friend of the war effort in Iraq
For all intents and purposes, this panel of "bi-partisans" was stacked 8-10 against the Republican administration.
Having read the entire report, let's do a brief synopsis of why the Study Group produced a virtually useless piece of recommendations. Here is The Iraq Study Group Report.
WHAT THE GROUP GOT RIGHT
- We also rejected the immediate withdrawal of our troops, because we believe that so much is at stake.
-We believe it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support. A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions. The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.
- Left unchecked, al Qaeda in Iraq could continue to incite violence between Sunnis and Shia. A chaotic Iraq could provide a still stronger base of operations for terrorists who seek to act regionally or even globally. Al Qaeda will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region and around the world. Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy to Osama bin Laden, has declared Iraq a focus for al Qaeda: they will seek to expel the Americans and then spread “the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.” A senior European official told us that failure in Iraq could incite terrorist attacks within his country. The global standing of the United States could suffer if Iraq descends further into chaos. Iraq is a major test of, and strain on, U.S. military, diplomatic, and financial capacities.
WHAT THE GROUP GOT WRONG
-Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively.
- Dealing with Iran and Syria is controversial. Nevertheless, the Support Group should actively engage Iran and Syria in its diplomatic dialogue, without preconditions.
- If the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government.
- The United States must make it clear to the Iraqi government that the United States could carry out its plans, including planned redeployments, even if Iraq does not implement its planned changes. America’s other security needs and the future of our military cannot be made hostage to the actions or inactions of the Iraqi government.
- We should seek to complete the training and equipping mission by the first quarter of 2008, as stated by General George Casey on October 24, 2006.
- The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability.
- In exchange for these actions and in the context of a full and secure peace agreement, the Israelis should return the Golan Heights, with a U.S. security guarantee for Israel that could include an international force on the border, including U.S. troops if requested by both parties.
- If the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government.
-amnesty proposals from the Iraqi government are an important incentive in reconciliation talks and they need to be generous. Amnesty proposals to once-bitter enemies will be difficult for the United States to accept, just as they will be difficult for the Iraqis to make. Yet amnesty is an issue to be grappled with by the Iraqis, not by Americans. Despite being politically unpopular—in the United States as well as in Iraq—amnesty is essential if progress is to take place. Iraqi leaders need to be certain that they have U.S. support as they move forward with this critical element of national reconciliation.
- The most highly qualified U.S. officers and military personnel should be assigned to the imbedded teams, and American teams should be present with Iraqi units down to the company level.
-Despite a massive effort, stability in Iraq remains elusive and the situation is deteriorating. The Iraqi government cannot now govern, sustain, and defend itself without the support of the United States. Iraqis have not been convinced that they must take responsibility for their own future. Iraq’s neighbors and much of the international community have not been persuaded to play an active and constructive role in supporting Iraq. The ability of the United States to shape outcomes is diminishing. Time is running out.
Iran & Syria: It is naive at best to believe either Iran or Syria would help Iraq when they are at every turn sabotaging it. The US generals say along with the Iraqi government that the greatest problem in Iraq may be Iran and Syria's interference and instigation of violence through funding, providing IEDs and supporting sectarian tensions through violence. When asked about their involvement, they deny any involvement while continuing to advocate Iraq's demise through their actions. These countries should not be rewarded with a nod, a wink and the turning of an international blind eye. They should not be treated as honest brokers but the supporters of terrorism that they are and excluded from diplomatic talks. Iraq as a nation has the right to conduct such diplomatic ties, since these countries are neighbors, but the United States engaging in such foolish and pretentious discussions would validate Iran and Syria more. This would also serve to legitimize terrorist states who routinely (and rather proudly) lie about their involvement in Iraq and other terrorist ventures.
Issuing Ultimatums to Iraq: The insulting language toward the Iraqi government is a bullying tactic symptomatic of the left. Keeping in mind the United States invaded Iraqi and the Study Group should be more sensitive about hurling ultimatums and threats to a people who have been traumatized for many decades. Seeing that Iraq has developed faster and with greater progress than America at her beginning should have instilled a sense of humility amongst the Study group. Of course it did not.
Proposing Amnesty for Insurgents and Terrorists: The Iraq Study Group should know that Iraq Prime Minister Nouri Maliki proposed and attempted to implement a controversial 28 point plan in June 2006 to bring about reconciliation through amnesty intended to end sectarian violence and the insurgency. The most politicized parts of the plan included:
- amnesty "for those not proven involved in crimes, terrorist activities and war crimes against humanity"
- releasing thousands of suspected insurgents who "pledge to condemn violence and vow to back" the government and advocates "canceling all red lines" that exclude Iraqis from political life provided they did not commit crimes.
It has been one of his government's biggest failures. In fact, it was the DEMOCRATS who accused al-Maliki of betraying American benevolence via this proposal, now regurgitated by the Iraqi Study Group Report. Trying to capitalize on the political negativity of the al-Maliki "amnesty" proposal, Senator Carl Levin, D-Michigan had this to say:
“For heaven's sake, we liberated that country. We got rid of a horrific dictator. We've paid a tremendous price. More than 2,500 Americans have given up their lives. The idea that they should even consider talking about amnesty for people who have killed people who liberated their country is unconscionable."
Now Levin, in typical liberal hypocrisy mode, praises the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group Report.
End Training/Equipping of Iraqi Troops by 2008; Begin More Redeployments: This advice, while not cutting and running, is contrary to what U.S. commanders on the ground advise. Although the Iraq Study Group says this idea originated by GEN Casey in October 2006, they conveniently left out this detail: Casey and other U.S. commanders say this is a projection of Iraqi readiness because of the current rate of success BUT is contingent on the situation on the ground. GEN Casey did not advocate withdrawing by a particular date. Considering that the United States still has military bases in Germany, Korea and Japan, flexibility and necessity have to be implemented.
Israel and the Palestinians: The Iraq Study Group has no right nor authority to propose the U.S. enter into negotiations with the enemy of our ally and give them Israeli land. We cannot give the Palestinians the Golan Heights any more than Israel can broker off New York City to al-Qaeda. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also rejected the Iraq Study Group assertion that dealing with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would make things better in Iraq saying there is no connection between the two.
"I don't believe that a peace conference with people who are dedicated to your extinction has much short term gain." -John McCain
"I'm skeptical that it's realistic to think that Iran wants the US to succeed in Iraq." -Joe Lieberman
More Embedded U.S. Military Transition Teams to Train Iraqi Forces at Company Level: MiTTs (Military Transition Teams) aim is to make the Iraqi unit (at battalion, brigade, or division level) self-sustainable tactically, operationally and logistically so that the battalion is prepared to take over responsibility for battle space. Assigning "the most highly qualified U.S. officers and military personnel" to be embedded takes them away from the combat and operational mission. If this weren't bad enough, the Iraqi government says it is a violation of Iraqi sovereignty to embed MORE U.S. troops with Iraqis "down to the company level." Iraqi troops must operate under Iraqi command, not U.S. command to improve the security problem. Also, more U.S. embeds would cause a bottle neck of trainers without enough translators. No U.S. military commander has or will endorse this suggestion.
Iraqi Responsibility and the Shortness of Time: The Iraq Study Group said: "Iraqis have not been convinced that they must take responsibility for their own future. Iraq’s neighbors and much of the international community have not been persuaded to play an active and constructive role in supporting Iraq. The ability of the United States to shape outcomes is diminishing. Time is running out."
Let's cut to the chase; MAJ GEN William Caldwell said reported this week at the daily Iraqi Multi-National that Iraq has reached "the 70 % mark of Iraqi army divisions' headquarters assuming responsibility for the battlespace." Iraqis ARE taking responsible for their own future and the ones who are reluctant are reluctant because they have heard the relentless drum beating of Democrats for 3 years proclaim Iraq as defeated, a quagmire and a Bush failure. The fear of U.S. withdrawal puts Iraqis in the position of having to align themselves with the militias and insurgency for their own protection. If Democrats had supported the war effort, the insurgency would likely be defeated, al-Qaeda relocating in full force to other headquarters in the world (like Somalia) and Iran would have no hope of investing itself into the situation. If anyone is to blame for the uncertainty on the ground it is not the average Iraqi, but the Democrats who've given their enemies hope and light at the end of the tunnel that time alone will grant them victory. It is also the fault of white collared bureaucrats in the Green Zone and in Washington, D.C. who have made the worst of tactical blunders on the ground in Iraq.
THE GROUP ON THE U.N.
RECOMMENDATION 7 : The Support Group should call on the participation of the office of the United Nations Secretary- General in its work. The United Nations Secretary-General should designate a Special Envoy as his representative.
RECOMMENDATION 10 : The issue of Iran’s nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the United Nations Security Council and its five permanent members (i.e., the United States , United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China) plus Germany.
RECOMMENDATION 15: Concerning Syria, some elements of that negotiated peace should be:
• Syria’s full adherence to UN Security Council Resolution 1701 of August 2006, which provides the framework for Lebanon to regain sovereign control over its territory.
RECOMMENDATION 17: Concerning the Palestinian issue, elements of that negotiated peace should include:
• Adherence to UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and to the principle of land for peace, which are the only bases for achieving peace.
To recommend the U.N. do anything useful indicates a full state of denial of history and ability. The U.N.'s failure to enforce it's resolutions is precisely why there is war in Iraq today. The U.N. refused to make Saddam Hussein comply and in fact was in bed with him via the Oil for Food scandal. The U.N. has only succeeded in threatening North Korea with paper resolutions while promising they will not act militarily if N. Korea violates the terms of the resolutions. Kim Jung Il's creation of nuclear bombs, which he has been all too happy to test, are a blatant show of the impotence of a U.N. resolution. The U.N. is totally incapable in making Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad comply with resolutions forbidding the development of a nuclear program. In fact, Ahmadinejad has openly mocked U.N. resolutions as worthless and ineffectual, guaranteeing their prompt dismissal.
THE GROUP ON CASUALTIES
Attacks against U.S., Coalition, and Iraqi security forces are persistent and growing. October 2006 was the deadliest month for U.S. forces since January 2005, with 102 Americans killed. Total attacks in October 2006 averaged 180 per day, up from 70 per day in January 2006. Daily attacks against Iraqi security forces in October were more than double the level in January. Attacks against civilians in October were four times higher than in January. Some 3,000 Iraqi civilians are killed every month.
The media recently reported with glee that the war in Iraq has lasted longer than World War II. Now that the Iraq Study Group is examining both US and Iraqi deaths, its necessary to point this out: While over 3,000 American soldiers have lost their lives over the past three years in Iraq, 408,306 lost their lives during World War II in the same amount of time. Comparatively, this war has sustained lower casualties on both sides.
MOST RIDICULOUS:
• Deter even more destructive interference in Iraq by Syria and Iran.
Deter interference with.....incentives? There's a brilliant idea.
REACTION IN IRAQ:
Iraq President Jalal Talabani: calls report "dangerous"
"I think the Baker-Hamilton report is unfair and unjust, and it contains some very dangerous articles which undermine the sovereignty of Iraq and the constitution. I consider the report to be a type of insult to the Iraqi people."
He singled out the report's call for the approval of a de-Baathification law that could allow thousands of officials from Saddam Hussein's ousted Baath party to return to their jobs.
On Increasing U.S. Embeds
The Kurdish leader also criticized the call for increasing the number of U.S. troops embedded to train Iraqis from 3,000 to 4,000 currently to 10,000 to 20,000.
"It (the report) is not respecting the desire of the Iraqi people to control its army and to be able to rearm and train Iraqi forces under the leadership of the Iraqi government. It asks that they put foreign officers in every unit, which is a violation of Iraq's sovereignty ... What will remain of our sovereignty? The Iraqi people are able to rule the country ... many people ask why there is no security, and that is because our hands are tied. Al-Maliki cannot move 10 soldiers from one place to another (without US authorisation)." The report has a mentality that we are a colony where they impose their conditions and neglect our independence."
"If you read this report, one would think that it is written for a young, small colony that they are imposing these conditions on. We are a sovereign country."
"The Iraqi government plans to send a letter to President Bush expressing our views about the main issues in the report. I believe that President George Bush is a brave and committed man and he is adamant to support the Iraqi government until they've reached success
Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: has "reservations about the report"; opposes increased U.S. embeds in Iraqi forces
Mahmoud Othman, prominent Kurdish lawmaker:
"I think this report was written in the first place to generate agreement among the Americans themselves and to find cooperation between the Democrats and the Republicans in order to achieve U.S. interests. The absence of an Iraqi representative on the panel is a shortcoming."
"It seems those who wrote it have little knowledge about the situation in Iraq. They only visited the Green Zone for some days. They did not go to the south or to Kurdistan to ask the people there. This is the reason why their outcome and recommendations are superficial and inaccurate."
Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, a top Shiite politician:
"The report includes inaccurate information that's based on dishonest sources."
Massoud Barzani, president of the Kurdish region: Iraq Study Group has made ''unrealistic and inappropriate'' suggestions; he also objected to recommendations on reinstating Saddam loyalists in their old government jobs and giving Iraq's neighbors a role in efforts to end the violence.
Iraqi Citizens: "cool reception"; "on the streets of Baghdad on Wednesday, skepticism also was widespread"
Iraq Study Group ON STAYING THE COURSE
Current U.S. policy is not working, as the level of violence in Iraq is rising and the government is not advancing national reconciliation. Making no changes in policy would simply delay the day of reckoning at a high cost. Nearly 100 Americans are dying every month. The United States is spending $2 billion a week. Our ability to respond to other international crises is constrained. A majority of the American people are soured on the war. This level of expense is not sustainable over an extended period, especially when progress is not being made. The longer the United States remains in Iraq without progress, the more resentment will grow among Iraqis who believe they are subjects of a repressive American occupation. As one U.S. official said to us, “Our leaving would make it worse. . . . The current approach without modification will not make it better.”
My analysis may not be a popular one, but "staying the course" is the right course. What the Iraq Study Group recommended were wildly out of touch with U.S. commanders on the ground, Pentagon officials and the democratically elected Iraqi government. In fact, the military is conducting its own "Iraq Study Group" session of sorts, and is preparing a briefing that will no doubt be in stark contrast with the folly of the Study Group Report. The Iraq Study Group's authority rests only on its days spent in the Green Zone and it's one teleconference with Iraqi PM al-Maliki. What the group believes is "staying the course" is a continuation of the violence. In actuality, it means holding fast while American forces train Iraqis as they take the lead in the military and security. By this, they learn through trial and error, success and disappointment, what works, what doesn't, and how do deal with their own unique set of problems. In the meantime, infrastructure, the economy and the standard of living is all being progre ssively rebuilt.
It is bureaucrats from the State Department who, from the safety of their air conditioned offices in the Green Zone, made the biggest blunders of the war. It was the out of touch white collars who promised the Iraqi Army in 2003 that if they remained and were a helpful part of the reconstruction, they would be paid their wages, and it was the out of touch white collars who then refused to pay them. This sparked the insurgency and led to anti-American sentiment in Baghdad. This is but one example.
Now the white collared politicians and bureaucrats, called the Iraq Study Group, whose greatest qualification seems to be that they have an opinion, are likewise suggesting implementations that would further alienate Iraqis and add to the hard conditions on the ground. Their arrogance and self-bloviation of the last week blinds them from the current and steady progress on the ground. There's no doubt these are difficult days for Iraqis, but all that needs to happen for Iraq to go from a temporary frying pan to a permanent fire is to accept the recommendations of the Group. We can only thank God they have no authority with which to implement them.
OTHERS BLOGGING
The American Israeli Patriot Hot Air Ms Underestimated (with video!) Sister Toldjah Regime Change Iran Political Pit Bull Don Surber Flopping Aces RightWing Guy Christ Matters
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/809017
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (14)
The left has been using supposed Iraqi opposition to our current "occupation" to get them all their steam in the anti-war support. I wonder how they'll dodge this one?
One minor correction…Leon Panetta was the President’s Chief of Staff during Clinton’s first term, not the National Security Advisor.
At least I know someone's reading the fine lines!
You're right, hon. As far as I'm concerned the Iraq Study Group is a joke. I hope the ones you cited as "what they got wrong" are the ones that Bush throws out. "Their greatest qualification is that they have an opinion." Absolutely! I wish I could tell them what to do with that opinion.
I've noticed that those who wear the Che shirts, advocating "revolutionism", are either ignorant college kids or money saturated celebs like Prince Harry, Johnny Depp, etc. People who have a low morality threshold or lots of money and fame are above the communistic frey because they've already achieved the highest tier of communism. Communism has always been hypoctrical because it promotes commonality and equality but logistically results in a class system of the very wealthy and privileaged.... and everyone else.
That is the subconscious appeal of elitists to communism and Che-like revolutionaryism. This manifests itself in Carter, too many Democrats to name, and even elist superior politicians on the Iraq Study Group who end up suggesting what will hurt America and Americans and assist America's enemies.
Fools!
These diplocrats are clueless. How many of their recommendations have we heard from GEN Casey or Abizaid? Exactly. ZERO.
This is typical abuse of language, accusing people of being "Communists" "socialists", "liberals", without knowing the essense of the meanings attached to these words.
You know what is good for America? Staying away from pretending to "Fix" other people's problems unilaterally. Based on its history, America is hardly a moral authority on anything, and it needs to use its economic power wisely, if it wants to be treated with respect.
As for your Jesus talk, I'm not even going to humor you.