Thread: The Iraq Muddle Group

The Iraq Muddle Group
Bush and Hakim count for more than Baker-Hamilton.

Thursday, December 7, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

President Bush met yesterday with the Iraq Study Group to discuss its long-awaited report, but by far his most important Iraq meeting of the week was Monday's with Shiite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. That's because the way to success in Iraq lies in stronger U.S. support for Baghdad's Shiite-led governing coalition, not in some bipartisan strategic muddle ginned up for domestic political purposes.


This is not to say that yesterday's Study Group report, led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, serves no useful purpose. In calling for a withdrawal of most U.S. troops by 2008--if security conditions allow--the report rejects any rapid withdrawal or deadline. Likewise, it reinforces the case Mr. Bush has been making about the ugly consequences of failure in Iraq for American interests. This includes the chance of a bloodbath that would make Rwanda look tame. If the report helps to politically isolate John Murtha and the get-out-now left, its authors will have done some good.

As for specific proposals, the Study Group proves Robert Gates's point from his nomination hearing on Tuesday that "there are no new ideas on Iraq." Its best proposal--embedding more American troops to train and fight with Iraqi military units--is well under way at the Pentagon. It has been clear for some time that the Iraq Army needs at least to double its current size, and the presence of U.S. troops with Iraqi units has produced better results.

On the other hand, the ISG's proposal to negotiate with Iran and Syria is a very old idea that isn't likely to go anywhere. The report argues that because both Iran and Syria have an "interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq," they will want to cooperate in some larger regional settlement.

Come again? Iran's leadership proclaims its satisfaction with the U.S. troubles in Iraq on an almost daily basis. They seem to believe their interest lies in bleeding the U.S. so much that no President will ever contemplate regime change anywhere else for a very long time. In any case, while Iran and Syria can harm us in Iraq at the margins, Iraq's sectarian violence is primarily indigenous--fomented by Sunni Baathists and their al Qaeda allies, and countered by Shiite militias.

And this is where the ISG went most awry, with its analysis that comes close to a pox on all Iraqi factions. Of course "national reconciliation" is essential and Iraq's minority Sunnis need to be given a stake in the new Iraq. But the reality is that the main cause of the violence in Iraq--the main enemy--are the Sunni terrorists. They can't be appeased with political offers because their goal is to drive out America and then topple the government.

On that point, the best "new" idea on Iraq that we've heard runs exactly counter to the ISG suggestion of "conditional" U.S. support based on forced "reconciliation." According to a report in the Washington Post, State Department Counselor Phillip Zelikow recently drafted a memo on something called the "80% solution," referring to the roughly 80% of Iraqis who are Shiites and Kurds. Mr. Zelikow argues that U.S. attempts to draw violent Sunni factions into the political process have not only failed but also alienated our natural allies among the majority of Iraqis who welcomed the overthrow of Saddam.

This does not mean the U.S. would be taking sides with Shiite death squads against the Sunni terrorists. Far from it, the point would be to reassure Iraq's elected government that the United States is firmly on its side. This is particularly important for Mr. Hakim and other Shiites, many of whom still remember being abandoned by the U.S. after they were urged to rebel against Saddam way back in 1991.

The U.S. has resurrected that mistrust far too often since 2003--in the use of Algerian Sunni Lakhdar Brahimi to select Iraq's first interim government, and in the U.S. role earlier this year in forcing out former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari. Many Shiites now feel Nouri al-Maliki's government is being undercut too.

So it's no surprise that Maliki aides reacted angrily yesterday to the ISG suggestion of "conditional" support. Shiite mistrust also played a role in the cancellation last week of the planned three-way meeting among Mr. Maliki, Mr. Bush, and Jordan's King Abdullah. Our information is the snub had nothing to do with the leak of a memo about Mr. Maliki by National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley (the Bush-Maliki meeting went ahead as planned) but was instead a signal that the Iraqi government wants no part of a "regional solution" that involves concessions to Sunni terrorists.

A fair deal for ordinary Sunnis on oil revenues and other issues is more likely if the Shiite-led government feels secure, not threatened. The Maliki government will also have more clout to disarm Shiite militias if U.S. support seems firm. This strategy is also the best way to counter Iranian influence in Iraq. Most Iraqi Shiites have no desire to take orders from Tehran, but they will surely turn eastward if they feel abandoned by the U.S.

Mr. Bush was diplomatic in welcoming the ISG report yesterday, as he had to be. But one idea he'd do well to reject out of hand is the proposal that backing for Mr. Maliki be conditioned on U.S. benchmarks. The more the U.S. looks like it is forcing a political solution on Baghdad's moderate Shiites, the less likely a genuine "reconciliation" will become.

Editorial board member Rob Pollock discusses the ISG in a WSJ.com video.

"Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from
Dow Jones & Company, Inc."

And what is your opinion?

Originally Posted by davideyoung

And what is your opinion?

My opinion is that the Iraq study group is another farcical attempt to appease uninformed Leftists clamouring for failure in Iraq.

I want someone to tell me what this report states that is so new? I want to know how a dialogue with two nations who are known to foment terrorism is going to help the situation in Iraq.

This is about as retarded as asking the proverbial fox to watch the henhouse.

There is only one correct course for Iraq. To stay the course, fight these insurgents, rout out these terrorists and stay as long as it takes to make Iraq a stable and prosperous Democracy. Anything less than that would be a victory to Al Qaeda and terrorism and a failure for Western Nations.

I know Europe thinks the Osterich approach to diplomacy is the solution, but I counter that this mypopic view only encourages despots and terrorists.

Nothing is new. People have been calling for us not to be in Iraq since before we attacked, and now the reasons stated in the beginning have been vallified since.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

? I want to know how a dialogue with two nations who are known to foment terrorism is going to help the situation in Iraq.

They are not, they are contributing to the problem. That serves to illustrate how dire the situation really is. When there exists an invisable line that dictates where you operate, and that invisable line is ignored by your enemy, you have a serious problem.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

My opinion is that the Iraq study group is another farcical attempt to appease uninformed Leftists clamouring for failure in Iraq.

I want someone to tell me what this report states that is so new? I want to know how a dialogue with two nations who are known to foment terrorism is going to help the situation in Iraq.

This is about as retarded as asking the proverbial fox to watch the henhouse.

There is only one correct course for Iraq. To stay the course, fight these insurgents, rout out these terrorists and stay as long as it takes to make Iraq a stable and prosperous Democracy. Anything less than that would be a victory to Al Qaeda and terrorism and a failure for Western Nations.

I know Europe thinks the Osterich approach to diplomacy is the solution, but I counter that this mypopic view only encourages despots and terrorists.

What this report states that's so new is the idea of diplomacy. The single most important thing a government can accomplish for the American people.
It has been diplomacy that kept us from only ghosts know how many wars.
The ostrich approach to diplomacy? You've gotta be kidding. The Bush method is invasion as a shining example (as you put it) of how democracy is not supposed to work. The chickenhawk approach to diplomacy.
If you truly believe that our real enemies, those who are responsible for 9/11, would be dumb enough to meet us on our chosen battlefield, you are as clueless as you are a sheep of the Bush agenda.
A very wise Diplomat once said, you should hold your friends close but hold your enemies even closer. The way to root out those who would do us harm is through the carrot and stick of open dialogue and the covert operations of those who, armed with information gleaned from such diplomatic efforts, have the inside on those plotters.
Invading sovereign states in the region only highlights our imperialistic intentions and alienates all who would be forthcoming with this valuable intelligence. Totally counterproductive and a waste of the lives of our young people. It is those who refuse to see this that are the "retarded" ones as you put it. (a very poor choice of words if you know any mentally challenged people) It's folks like you who still buy into the Bushco lies who need an education. The vast majority of Americans can now see it for the miserably failed policy that it is.

Originally Posted by namvet69

What this report states that's so new is the idea of diplomacy. The single most important thing a government can accomplish for the American people.

It has been diplomacy that kept us from only ghosts know how many wars.
The ostrich approach to diplomacy? You've gotta be kidding.

The way to root out those who would do us harm is through the carrot and stick of open dialogue and the covert operations of those who, armed with information gleaned from such diplomatic efforts, have the inside on those plotters.

REALLY? So Diplomacy is the solution?

So tell me, how did diplomacy work with Hitler? How did diplomacy work with Japan? How does an ongoing dialogue with elements in the Middle East prevented a 9-11? How did diplomacy prevent Saddam from invading Kuwait?

The only thing that DIALOGUE provides to DESPOTS is TIME to plot. Nothing more, and nothing less. Time to pull your head out of the sand osterich and face reality. Diplomacy only works when nations are honest about their intentions.

I'd like to know how Syria and Iran have proven thier HONEST intentions? DER.

After all the talk, there comes a time where only action can get the desired results.

Originally Posted by namvet69

Invading sovereign states in the region only highlights our imperialistic intentions and alienates all who would be forthcoming with this valuable intelligence. Totally counterproductive and a waste of the lives of our young people. It is those who refuse to see this that are the "retarded" ones as you put it. (a very poor choice of words if you know any mentally challenged people) It's folks like you who still buy into the Bushco lies who need an education. The vast majority of Americans can now see it for the miserably failed policy that it is.

Obviously you are not only historically ignorant, but in denial about what Imperialism means.

To suggest that we are being Imperialists is absurd to say the least, ignorant of the definition at worst.

In order to have this uninformed view, one must pretend that Saddam did not invade Kuwait ten years ago. One must also pretend that he did not desire WMDs. One must also pretend that Saddam did not promote terrorism in the region, and one must also pretend that his airforce did not fire on a US warship in the Gulf.

Yes dear Leftists, you have to PRETEND a lot of things never occurred to have such an uninformed mypoci view of politics and the Middle East. But then, if you didn't have that, you would have to face the REALITY and FACTS. And we all know that FACTS are anathema to Leftist views.

"Kerry" on. You're stuck on denial and can't get up.

Despots...time to plot...appeasement. If you mention that Saddam had no weapons and wasn't actually doing anything when we invaded, people turn around and venomously ask, "And I suppose you would have supported the appeasement of Hitler, as well?"

Only-- and this is a very important difference --today, with our military, there is no real danger in waiting to attack Iraq until they have actually done something. In fact, that's what happened in 1990, and what did that take, all of 3 or 4 days to totally whip his ass, gut his army and send his people walking back into Iraq? We've got air power that nobody has any ability to counter at this stage. If we had waited until 1941, until Hitler controlled all of Europe and even England had fallen, and we had the kind of military we have now and Germany had what Iraq has...WWII would have been over in 3 months, tops. We could have bombed the piss out of Germany right off the bat. No nukes required. Just an ass-whipping so severe that the German economy and war machine would have been totally destroyed so fast that Hitler's head would have spun off his shoulders.

"Appeasement" is one thing, and it means watching as Saddam invades and doing nothing. Waiting until somebody actually does something that deserves a response is not appeasement.

Originally Posted by splansing

Despots...time to plot...appeasement. If you mention that Saddam had no weapons and wasn't actually doing anything when we invaded, people turn around and venomously ask, "And I suppose you would have supported the appeasement of Hitler, as well?"

Only-- and this is a very important difference --today, with our military, there is no real danger in waiting to attack Iraq until they have actually done something. In fact, that's what happened in 1990, and what did that take, all of 3 or 4 days to totally whip his ass, gut his army and send his people walking back into Iraq? We've got air power that nobody has any ability to counter at this stage. If we had waited until 1941, until Hitler controlled all of Europe and even England had fallen, and we had the kind of military we have now and Germany had what Iraq has...WWII would have been over in 3 months, tops. We could have bombed the piss out of Germany right off the bat. No nukes required. Just an ass-whipping so severe that the German economy and war machine would have been totally destroyed so fast that Hitler's head would have spun off his shoulders.

"Appeasement" is one thing, and it means watching as Saddam invades and doing nothing. Waiting until somebody actually does something that deserves a response is not appeasement.

So what you are saying is that we should just wait until Saddam committed another attrocity on a neighboring nation to act again? Over and over?


I am sure the Kuwaiti's who, at the hand of Saddams troops, had murdered parents, children, friends and relatives would not agree with your desire to allow despots to unilaterally attack them, commit attrocities and murders before we act.


It's an absurd notion that we should just wait for perfect information before we act.

I guess you continue to continually ignore the fact that Saddam was in defiance of the agreements HE signed and agreed to after he was ejected from Kuwait. Should we just pretend that we didn't really meant it?


Your ignorance of the FACTS is only exceeded by your denial of the realities to which you profess you are aware of. Oh, and this is not to mention your profound ignorance of WWII and Hitler's Germany. Telling.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

REALLY? So Diplomacy is the solution?

So tell me, how did diplomacy work with Hitler? How did diplomacy work with Japan? How does an ongoing dialogue with elements in the Middle East prevented a 9-11? How did diplomacy prevent Saddam from invading Kuwait?

The only thing that DIALOGUE provides to DESPOTS is TIME to plot. Nothing more, and nothing less. Time to pull your head out of the sand osterich and face reality. Diplomacy only works when nations are honest about their intentions.

I'd like to know how Syria and Iran have proven thier HONEST intentions? DER.

After all the talk, there comes a time where only action can get the desired results.



Obviously you are not only historically ignorant, but in denial about what Imperialism means.

To suggest that we are being Imperialists is absurd to say the least, ignorant of the definition at worst.

In order to have this uninformed view, one must pretend that Saddam did not invade Kuwait ten years ago. One must also pretend that he did not desire WMDs. One must also pretend that Saddam did not promote terrorism in the region, and one must also pretend that his airforce did not fire on a US warship in the Gulf.

Yes dear Leftists, you have to PRETEND a lot of things never occurred to have such an uninformed mypoci view of politics and the Middle East. But then, if you didn't have that, you would have to face the REALITY and FACTS. And we all know that FACTS are anathema to Leftist views.

"Kerry" on. You're stuck on denial and can't get up.

In the absence of common sense arguments, those who have nothing, resort to insults. It's a very old and very tired method of debate. Similar to the fearmongering sold by your heroes Bush/Cheney. It just doesn't wash anymore. America is coming to realize that gunboat diplomacy doesn't do anything but multiply your enemies. This is what has happened in Iraq and what will proliferate with every minute we remain. This is indeed a civil war we helped to create by removing the ONLY stabilizing force, however repugnant, that was holding back the religious factions.
A truly miopic view says that invasion of an ancient culture without knowing squat about that culture, is moronic.
This argument that you seem determined to label left vs right, (another divider used by your heroes) is in reality, a matter of right and wrong. The right way to conduct foreign policy and the right way to work within a representative democracy, and the wrong way to do these things.
You cannot advocate the spread of a democracy and at the very same time, usurp that democracy by bringing the country to war with outright lies. No matter what the ends, these means are antithetical to the very essence of that democracy. It's perverse and it's just plain wrong. And, as I said, the vast majority of Americans are coming to that realization, sans the hangers on that still buy into the nation building, new world order malarky that you seem to have digested so thoroughly.