‘Grave and deteriorating’

I hesitate to make too much of the Iraq Study Group report because a) I believe the ISG lacked the political will to address the toughest questions; and b) the Bush White House will almost certainly ignore the report altogether. That said, the ISG’s report has captured the media’s attention, will draw both praise and consideration from members of Congress (in both parties), and will probably soon be synonymous with credible, “serious” thinking about Iraq policy, much the way the 9/11 Commission is equated with a reliable approach to domestic security concerns.

As for the ISG report itself, the panel may have lacked a single liberal voice, and may have been reluctant to offer advice they knew the president would reject out of hand, but the general criticism of administration policy in the report will surely draw the ire of the Bush gang.

Conditions in Iraq are “grave and deteriorating,” with the prospect that a “slide toward chaos” could topple the U.S.-backed government and trigger a regional war unless the United States changes course and seeks a broader diplomatic and political solution involving all of Iraq’s neighbors, according to a bipartisan panel that gave its recommendations to President Bush and Congress today.

In what amounts to the most extensive independent assessment of the nearly four-year-old conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 2,800 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis, the Iraq Study Group paints a bleak picture of a nation that Bush has repeatedly vowed to transform into a beacon of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.

Despite a list of 79 recommendations meant to encourage regional diplomacy and lead to a reduction of U.S. forces over the next year, the panel acknowledges that stability in Iraq may be impossible to achieve any time soon.

We are not, White House protestations notwithstanding, winning the war in Iraq.

At a minimum, whether the report goes as far as I’d like or not, it’s fair to say the ISG’s advice, and the widespread reaction to it, will reshape the debate over the war and lead to the first genuine policy discussion over the war since, well, ever.

The study group recommends that the United States withdraw nearly all of its combat units from Iraq by early 2008, sharply reducing the current troop level of more than 140,000 while leaving behind tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel to advise, train and embed with Iraqi forces.

It also recommends that Bush threaten to reduce economic and military support for Iraq’s government if it fails to meet specific benchmarks intended to improve security in the country. It suggests that the Bush administration open talks with Iran and Syria about ways to end the violence in Iraq, proposes holding a regional conference to bring together all of Iraq’s neighbors and urges Bush to aggressively tackle the Israeli-Palestinian dispute to reduce the broader regional tensions fueling the Iraq conflict. […]

The report says the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq “should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army.” While the government in Baghdad “will need U.S. assistance for some time to come,” especially in assuring security, “the United States must not make open-ended commitments to keep large numbers of troops deployed in Iraq.” (emphasis added)

There’s reportedly ample discussion about pressuring Iraqis to play a larger role in shaping their own destiny — Rumsfeld’s “hand off the bicycle seat” metaphor comes to mind — with the apparent realization that the U.S. will have to scale back either way.

“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 report says. […]

“Because none of the operations conducted by U.S. and Iraqi military forces are fundamentally changing the conditions encouraging the sectarian violence, U.S. forces seem to be caught in a mission that has no foreseeable end,” the study group found.

There are a total of 79 key recommendations from the Iraq Study Group — TP ran with six of the most important — though it remains unclear how many, if any, the president will consider. At least for today, Bush continues to appear oddly detached from reality.

The country is “tired of pure political bickering,” [Bush] said.

The president apparently made the remark without a hint of irony.

Hey, at least there might be a day of critical war thinking without the mandatory side dish accusation of treason. And we thought the elections wouldn’t accomplish anything!!!

  • Interesting to note the “out by early 2008” language. Definitely will be a problem for Bush, although this would help take a large chunk, but not all, of the issue of Iraq out of the 2008 election. Can’t say whether this would help/hurt Dems.

  • well, i’m more satisfied than i expected to be: at least the message that the current policy is a failure is being pounded home.

    sadly, bush is no longer accurately described as “oddly” detached from reality: he’s got a clinical problem in being detached from reality. he has fucked up, big time, with (for the first time in his life) no one to bail him out, and he’s responding in classic denial fashion….

  • Christ, and now the world must wait while someone reads it aloud to him and explains all the hard words, all so The Decider can ignore the report along with anything else he doesn’t want to hear and stay the course.

    Ah well. Anyone care to predict how Snowjob will spin the phrase grave and deteriorating?

    “They just meant there are lots of bodies in graves and they are deteriorating. But we already knew that!”

  • Bush is a dingleberry on the oval orifice, er I mean office.

    Long slow distance running and biking are conducive to thinking and meditating, but as we know Bush is into hard-driving mountain-biking and running fast which are good for forgetting your problems. I think this is one form of his denial.

    It seems obvious that he won’t make any effort to solve the Iraq crisis. He’ll just hold on. He’s like any other short-timer waiting for retirement.

  • With his incredible reading abilities, I’m sure Mr Bush will know the report by heart by next week, right?

    And IMO “the United States must not make open-ended commitments to keep large numbers of troops deployed in Iraq.” means they want a timetable with benchmarks.

    But of course they had to wait til after the election to tell us that.

  • The ISG report will go in the stack of important unread material with the Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US report. Sorry George you haven’t covered your ass.

    Grave and deteriorating? Well, Bush always wanted gravitas. This must be it.

  • Like Earl, I’ve been waiting for the day we could talk about the Bushite failure in Iraq without being labeled traitors.

    Sadly, I doubt that day has arrived. I expect that wingnut voices will arise to proclaim that the ISG has emboldened our enemies and weakened our country and they are all terrorist-coddling traitors.

    The problem (not having read the thing yet) with the “get out by 2008” “plan” is this,

    What have we achieved that we can now happily leave (and by 2008 is NOW) proclaiming success?

    or

    What is there to do in Iraq that we simply can not do with the resources we are willing to commit that we would otherwise want to do?

    Threatening al-Maliki’s government is ridiculus. Either he can control his supporters, who are the Shi’a death squads, in which case his policy is one of ethnic cleansing, or he can’t control his “supporters” in which case, what is he to us but a figurehead. He doesn’t have the means to operate a military in a dangerous world. He has no logistics corps, no air force, barely enough of a navy to keep pirates from destroying his gulf coast refineries and pipelines, a police force that is riddled with death squads, and not even control over his whole capital (Karzi at least is legitimately the Mayor of Kabul). How can we expect from this guy anything?

    Sad to say, if we wanted to enforce political solutions on the Sunni, Shi’a and Kurds we should have stayed an occupying power for a lot longer rather than rush into elections to create a “legitimate” Iraqi Government.

    “I don’t see a civil war in Iraq. I don’t see a constituency for civil war. The vast majority of the people want hope for their families, not to massacre their neighbors or divide their country.

    I studied civil wars at West Point and at the Army Command and Staff College. I respect the credentials and opinions of those who want to hang that label here. But I respectfully — and strongly — disagree. I see the Iraqi people suffering from overlapping terrorist campaigns by extremist groups combined with the mass criminality that too often accompanies the sudden toppling of a dictatorship. This poses a different military challenge than does a civil war.” – William Caldwell IV

    Gen. Caldwell here has a rather interesting definition of Civil War. Either it’s genocide or it’s a seperatist movement. Is that all the possible scenarios?

    The English Civil War? The Spanish Civil War? The War of the Roses?

    People fought in these wars to become the one government. That’s what is happening in Iraq. The Shi’a are fighting to retain the semblence of a national government that is allowing them to practice ethnic cleansing, and the Sunnis are fighting to restore something like Baathist rule in Iraq. Sure there are amazing complications, like a seperatist movement among the Kurds which has been shushed but not eliminated, the prescence of foreign jihadists sowing death and destruction but still with a political goal in mind (a Baghdad centered Caliphate) and an occupying power which doesn’t know which side it should be on. But that does not change the fact that there is in fact a Civil War going on in Iraq, one where even members of both sides work in the supposedly national unity government.

  • What is most amazing about Baker/Hamilton report that it had to be done at all. With the vast resources at Bush’s disposal, he could not come up with a way forward? Bush, his advisers, enablers and sycophants are pathetic.

    What’s more, the fact that the commission was bipartisan is supposed to mean something? Who was it that was allowing partisanship to play a role regarding Iraq the past four years, and why?

    “We do not recommend a ‘stay the course’ solution,” — Baker
    “We do not know if [Iraq] can be turned around, but we think we have an obligation to try,” — Lee H. Hamilton

    Regardless of what else the report contains, those two statements are a complete refutation of everything Bush has said.

    I believe Bush will cave to some of the report’s recommendations, just as he was for to the 9/11 commission after he was against it. Everyone now knows the emperor is naked. He has no alternative.

    Sorry for the rant. This situation makes me nuts.

  • #7 – Racerx: Are you sure that’s what it means? Through our eyes, yes. But it could also mean:

    “No open ended commitments – we WILL stand down… umm… as soon as the Iraqis stand up… whenever that is”

  • I don’t think the report should be underestimated. Yes, we can criticize the particulars, but the President of the United States just got a humiliating vote of no confidence.

    Step back and look. Bush, his policies, competence and credibility have been very publicly rebuked. A somber bipartisan commission had to step in and explain to the Leader ‘O the Free World how to do his job. They did NOT whitewash for him, as he has long come to expect.

    Their conclusions were dismal, and as shrill as Radio Bush will react, few Americans will believe James Baker and other noted Republicans of the commission comprise a cell of Bolsheviks.

    If Bush knows what’s good for him, he will profusely thank the group for their difficult efforts on his and the nation’s behalf — and shut up. If he doesn’t, he’ll make himself look like the childish ass he is.

    I don’t put the latter past him at all. Remember after 9/11 when, angry about security leaks, he threatened to withhold intelligence from Congress — until he was gently informed (not reminded) it was prohibited by law? Back then, he at least paid lip service to the law, but now he regularly flaunts it.

  • I’m reading a lot of books right now (heh, heh, heh). Really good books (heh heh). Some of them are works of what some people like to call….”fiction.” This one book in purtickler is a real doozy. (heh heh heh) It’s called the Iraq Study Group Report. It says that Conditions in Iraq are “grave and deteriorating,” with the prospect that a “slide toward chaos” could topple the U.S.-backed government and trigger a regional war unless the United States changes course and seeks a broader diplomatic and political solution involving all of Iraq’s neighbors.

    Have you ever heard of anything so funny in all your life? Me neither (heh, heh, heh).

  • A toothless report with 79 ideas to fix what is broken that can be thrown away at the discretion of the same knuckleheads that broke things in the first place won’t bring the troops home, make the mess go away or stop the killing. But it does legitimize what Dems have been saying all along and getting labeled (and libeled) as traitors for: that Iraq is a mess and staying the course, among other things, is what got us there. The Serious Adults® have mainstreamed criticism of Bush’s Iraq war and now it’s a foregone conclusion that the White House is wrong on Iraq.

  • Lance (# 9), your terrific post makes an excellent point. I, too, have listened to all the “blame the lazy Iraqis” prattle with astonishment. In view of the fact that the Iraqis didn’t ask us to come in and produce utter chaos, and that the current government is a collection of empty suits, scolding and goading al-Maliki is akin to haranguing an injured cripple to leave his wheelchair and “walk like a man.”

  • “…the President of the United States just got a humiliating vote of no confidence.” – Alibubba

    If Humiliation relates to shame, the emotion that one feels when shown to have done something wrong or stupid, then have no fear. Boy George II is incapable of feeling shame.

    If Humiliation is the lose of reputation in the World, then have no fear. Boy George II retains no reputation to lose.

  • Gosh Alibubba, if I had read #15 before I wrote #16, I might have winked and been a little less harsh.

    But your analogy reminds me of stories of Bush seeing a wheelchair bound man in his prescence and saying “You look very comfortable.” in what you can be sure was a tone of “I’m the President, why don’t you try to stand up?”, ignorant of the fact that while some people ride wheelchairs because of pain or infirmity and can on occasion stand up for good reason, others are paraplegics incapable of standing up even for the Commander-in-Chief.

    So which is Iraq? Infirm or paraplegic? And does BG2 care?

  • We keep being told by the Bush Crime Family that we’re not leaving until our mission is accomplished. Since the mission appears to be taking home every last dime available to Halliburton et al. in the form of war profits, that will only occur the day someone in the Senate repeats Harry Truman’s investigation into war profiteeing. Senator Feingold? Anybody? Hellooooo?!

  • Hey CB, this post made it onto the ‘blog chicks’ segment during Wolfie’s show. Kewl beans.

  • Lance, your point about the term “humiliation” is valid. I should have given it more thought before using it. Bush really can’t be humiliated. He can only be angry and petulant. For a moment there, I confused him with a normal human being.

    Also, let me add my congrats to CB. I just saw the excerpt on Blitzer’s show. (Is it just me, or is the “Situation Room’s” set really horrible? It looks bi-polar.)

  • “Lance, your point about the term “humiliation” is valid.” – Alibubba

    It was far too good a point to miss out making 😉

    Thanks for the straight line.

  • Comments are closed.