The Iraq Study Group has finally released its report and here is it what it has found.
Iraq is a mess and we should talk to its neighbors to get them to help.
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.
This, to me, is a complete non-starter.
What this news story does not say is whether or not the ISG has even acknowledged that we are already in a “regional war”. The entire reason right now that there is such sectarian violence in Iraq is because Iran and Syria – the neighbors with whom the ISG wants us so earnestly to engage in diplomacy – are facilitating it. Moqtada al-Sadr, Iraq’s Violent Sectarian in Chief, is a paid proxy of Iran and speak with the voice of the Mad Mullahs.
It is no wonder that the Iraqi President fears for his country. He has to work every day alongside an agent of a hostile foreign power who we, his supposed friends, allowed to be there.
And more of this supposed realism seems to be in store. Here is what the report says we should fear, according to the story.
It warns of a humanitarian catastrophe that could spark a flood of refugees across the region, and the possible return of Iraq to dictatorial rule.
“Ethnic cleansing could escalate,” the report says. “The Iraqi people could be subjected to another strongman who flexes the political and military muscle required to impose order amid anarchy. Freedoms could be lost.”
There are several things worth noting here. First, I take any predictions of a “humanitarian catastrophe” with a planet-sized grain of salt. I heard the same warnings before the Gulf War and before we resumed hostilities with Saddam Hussein. They never happend. The “humanitarian catastrophe” was that we turned our backs on Iraq and allowed Saddam Hussein to commit genocide against the Kurds and Marsh Arabs then cut deals with the UN and our “allies” in France, Russia, and China to kill more Iraqis thanks to the Oil for Food Program.
But that’s not a catastrophe about which it is chic to speak. Not if you want to be a media darling.
And since when has James Baker and his merry band of greybeards cared one whit about ethnic cleansing? Remember, it was Baker who gave Lebanon over to the kind ministrations of Baby Assad and allowed Hussein free reign to rampage against his domestic enemies. Remember the deafening silence Leon Panetta and Vernon Jordan – noted civil rights pontificators – when the lives of nearly a million helpless Rwandans were snuffed out?
Remember the approval and encouragement of many august members of the ISG when tyrants razed villages, tortured and murdered the innocent, and stole the wealth of their nations to line their own pockets and procure the means to kill en masse more efficiently?
And where are they now as Mad Mahmoud threatens weekly to commit genocide – the very genocide that demanded the formation of the United Nations?
They are sitting behind their report, asking if we’d ever so kindly go please talk to the tyants and see if maybe they could possibly see their way clear to try to maybe help a little with ending the sectarian violence.
I find that contemptible. Here is a quote directly from the Executive Summary of the report.
No country in the region will benefit in the long term from a chaotic Iraq. Yet Iraq’s neighbors are not doing enough to achieve stability. Some are undercutting stability.
Some? Some??
We know full well who these “some” nations are. It is rank cowardice and delusion to pretend otherwise. We know their names. NAME THEM!!!
Their names are Iran and Syria.
Iran and Syria.
Iran and Syria!
Sweet merciful crapweasel, do we have to drag a pile of corpses into the Oval Office or the offices of the U.S. Institute for Peace before they will acknowledge the killers?
And what of the ISG’s ridiculous assertion that “no nation” will benefit from anarchy in Iraq? The entire reason that Iran and Syria are waging war against the Iraqis and us is because they will “benefit in the long term” from the chaos in Iraq. They will benefit greatly.
How? Well, look at the report itself. The willingness of otherwise intelligent and compassionate people to so much as suggest that we invite the tyrants in Tehran and Damascus to sit down and discuss the “chaos” in Iraq as if they weren’t the primary and continuing cause is benefit enough. That we would actually consider cutting deals with dictators again gives them incalculable gain in the region and the world.
More importantly, it gives them Iraq, the thing that we spent thousands of American lives and billions of American dollars to take away and keep away from a bloodthirsty tyrant.
“No country” will benefit? That could not be farther from the truth and it shames someone with the eminence and experience of James Baker that his name would appear anywhere near such a ridiculous assertion.
I said last week that our foreign policy ought to begin and end with three simple words: No more tyrants. I’ve spent the past few days with that phrase in my head. Every time I saw a news story about Iraq I thought “no more tyrants”. Every time I opened a new site and saw a picture like this
I would wonder why we’re treating these man as equals.
Really, how tough is it to look at the millions of people killed by tyrannies in just the past 15 years and resolve that we cannot stand smiling alongside these men anymore? How difficult is it to refuse to palaver with the bloody-handed and murder-minded men?
I should think that such a thing would nto be difficult at all. I should think that there would be very few among us who would balk at it.
I, apparently, would be very, very wrong.
We seem to love our tyrants and the ISG is bound and determine to make sure that we love them even more.
Iraq Study Group’s findings to be released online…
Read full story for latest details.
…
Your preznit started a vanity war to prove he is a man. After years and billions of dollars, that war is a complete failure. The leadership has been a complete failure. Progressives want the US out of Iraq, the reich wingnuts want us to nuke Iraq. Your dismal preznit doesn’t know what to do so he throws cold water on Baker/Hamilton to wake them up. Once woken up, Baker/Hamilton present a report which backs up the claims of MANY thoughtful people (we are losing). But instead of supporting the troops and getting them home, you now start yelling at Baker/Hamilton because they are shining some light on the lies and obfuscation of your preznit. Well sir, which is it? Do you support the Baker/Hamilton report (remember in is bi-partisan) or “stay the course”. History is weeping for all who supported the bush criminal enterprise. Bush got the US a huge black eye, and now we have to do the right thing – but what is the right thing?
The ISG recommended that we find out what Iran and Syria want in Iraq–this is just sensible. Presumably, they’re backing their guys just like we’re backing ours; since there are 2 sides to the civil war, there must be SOME overlap in the geopolitical horserace.
Ignoring the goals of your enemies is just foolish–we’re clearly not powerful enough to exert our will blindly, the way Cheney and Rumsfeld perceieve geopolitics.
Wow, you chickenhawk windbags are too much. Why don’t you personally cash the checks that you’re mouth (and keyboard) are writing…and enlist. If only, it was easy to just bomb and invade and occupy all of those countries that are led by evil men. Shall we make a list – Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Uzbekistan, North Korea? You and what army are gonna “finish the job” and “defeat the evil-doers”? How do we pay for it all? Baker’s people are called “realists” for a reason – they are grounded in reality. And the reality of Iraq is this – we don’t control the events there. It’s slipping into chaos. Iran and Syria are emboldened and helped by the mess. We cannot attain our goals. It’s only getting worse by every conceivable measure. Shall we continue to make it worse, war-boy or will you wake up?
I heartily agree with the ‘no more tyrants’ policy.
however it’s not an accident that the US frequently gets in bed with tyrants in the Middle East – because we prefer to deal with tyrants.
Tyrants will give us the oil we want, and keep a slice for themselves. Truly democratically elected leaders might choose a larger slice to spend on their countrymen – or worse, from our point of view: decided not to sell their oil to us at all.
The upshot is that we soil our nation’s commitment to principles by putting thugs, killers and worse into power and, as long as they do what we say, we look the other way.
THat’s how Saddam got into power. That’s how the Shah got into power, until the Iranian people revolted. That’s how the Saudi royal family got into power. Etc. etc.
Preliminary Analysis…
Andrew McCarthy takes a preliminary look at the report of the Iraq Study Group and is really not all that impressed. In fact he labels the entire product, "depressing". There are a lot of platitudes and "shoulds" in the re…
yes, the wahabbist jihadis who are affiliated with al qaeda are all secretly iranian shi’ia who enter iraq’s eastern border and travel all the way to anbar in the west (on the saudi border, oddly enough) yes, it’s the non-arab, non-sunni, non-saudi iranians who are behind al qaeda, not our BFFs tha sauds
oh, and the syrians, too. they’ve developed a language – half arabic, half farsi – that enables them to speak to their iranian counterparts. don’t believe this “sectarian division” crap. sunnis and shi’ia, secularists and fundamentalists, arabs and non-arabs, they all get along fine, if they’re brown.
whatever the opposite of “divide and conquer” is – that should be and has been our strategy. working really well so far.
the house of saud salutes your brave stand against dictators. hahahahahahahahaha!
YOu said, “The entire reason right now that there is such sectarian violence in Iraq is because Iran and Syria – the neighbors with whom the ISG wants us so earnestly to engage in diplomacy – are facilitating it.”
Are you unaware of the history within Iraq of sectarian violence???
Are you aware that on Monday, Bush met with the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim? The SCIRI is the most powerful DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED faction in Iraq.
The point is that Bush has so thoroughly empowered the Islamic fundamentalists that the US HAS to work with them. The ISG report isn’t the problem for denying the reality of Syria and Iran. The problem is right-wingers denying the reality of the Iraq that Bush’s invasion has created.
I’ll go ahead and respond to the one intelligent and reasonable comment here…
jim – It is true that we have dealt far too kindly with tyrants for our own peace and comfort. I say that time ought end right now. I’m tired of coddling folks like Ahmadinejad and Assad and the House of Saud and all of the others. It’s hig time we draw a very clear line and stand with it.
It’s time that both parties put their money where their mouths have been. If you support human rights, then support them. All the way.
I suppose someone should point out that Rumsfeld’s replacement is most famous for his involvement in illegally supplying Iranian fundamentalists with missiles — AFTER US citizens were taken hostage by them. You can make your own conclusion about this administration’s view of appeasing the enemy, or I’ll supply it: Appease them, but do it secretly while beating your chest and denying it.
How do you spell Uzbekistan? That’s always a hard one for me.
jimmie said, “I’m tired of coddling folks like Ahmadinejad and Assad and the House of Saud and all of the others. It’s hig time we draw a very clear line and stand with it.”
Okay, help me out here. The strongest political faction in Iraq since the legistlative elections is SCIRI, as I indicated above. SCIRI has strong ties with Iran. Bush has met with the SCIRI leader in the WH. Anyone working with the democratically elected leaders in Iraq must deal with SCIRI.
Now that I’ve connected the dots I put in an earlier comment, jimmie, here’s the question for you:
Where do you draw your “very clear line” between the US and the democratically-elected Iraqi party aligned with Iran?
My answer is that you can’t avoid dealing with the Iranian-allied party, UNLESS you propose installing our OWN TYRANT in Iraq. All this has been pointed out for months and months in the foreign policy press.
What’s your answer?
It’s very simple, tubino. You don’t deal with them. YOU deal with every other political party not tied to a tyrant. Those parties get your support. Those parties get funding from you. Those parties get your attention and advice.
The party that holds hands with tyrants gets nothing but scorn and an invitation to change their affiliation.
It’s simple, tubino, and I’ll say it again.
No. More. Tyrants.
yes, all non-saudi tyrants should be shunned. hahahahaha!
right, so we don’t “deal with” any sadrites or SCIRI or ba’athists. and sistani has removed himself from the political process. who’s left?
maybe we can install a kurdish-run apartheid state. sounds like a recipe for success.
Gosh, benjoya, how about the 24 million people of Iraq. I bet we could deal with them.
Bit we tend to forget them in this whole discussion, don’t we? We forget what they want, until they happen to say something that might validate some teensy piece of our worldview. We forget that they voted in numbers that would make us blush – twice! – for a government that would let them choose their own destiny. We were the ones who decided to allow the puppet al-Sadr into the game. We were the ones who decided not to call SCIRI on their ties fo murder and repression. We stayed mum so as not to upset the Tehran, Damascus, and UN apple carts.
Again. The policy is simple: No more tyrants.
Instead of arguing that the policy is just to gosh-darned hard to implement, how about being a little creative and finding ways to make it happen.
jimmie ranted, “Bit we tend to forget them in this whole discussion, don’t we? We forget what they want, until they happen to say something that might validate some teensy piece of our worldview. We forget that they voted in numbers that would make us blush – twice! – for a government that would let them choose their own destiny. We were the ones who decided to allow the puppet al-Sadr into the game. We were the ones who decided not to call SCIRI on their ties fo murder and repression.”
Okay, jimmie, this time you got it right.
“We” (meaning YOU) tend to forget that the 24M people of Iraq voted for a government in which SCIRI plays a LARGE part. We (YOU) do tend to forget that because it doesn’t validate our (your) worldview.
It’s simple, jimmie. A majority of the people in Iraq want the US out, and have voted for a party that according to you, should be shunned by the US.
So to sum up: According to you, the country that the US invaded and occupied now has a government that we should refuse to deal with (although we can work with minority factions, represented by our puppet and some others). We should leave (because we aren’t dealing with it), and that of course will further empower the radical elements and terrorists. Who of course we then will not deal with. Brilliant.
You simply dodged the question. Care to try again?
[...] UPDATE: One of the comments in my last post read: The ISG recommended that we find out what Iran and Syria want in Iraq–this is just sensible. Presumably, they’re backing their guys just like we’re backing ours; since there are 2 sides to the civil war, there must be SOME overlap in the geopolitical horserace. [...]
Oddly enough, tubino, reality does not agree with you.
The Iraqi people want the US out of Iraq, but eventually, when they believe they are ready. The last poll said they’d like us out in a year, providing the government is stable enough to run by itself.
As for the SCIRI, it’s only part of the government, not the entire thing. We may deal with it or not as we please.
Again, I say, the policy is a simple one: no more tyrants. Are you going to argue with the premise or help find ways to make it happen?
no more tyrants, huh? how about our friend king abdullah upthread? think we should stop inviting that particular tyrant to the presidential ranch? or are you so sure that no saudi ever meant us harm?
what are you talking about, benjoya? the kingdom of saudi arabia has never produced anything but peaceful engineers and tolerant clergy! watch out for those crafty iranians, i tell you!
jimmie, you’re still dodging the question, and really dodging the reality of the situation in Iraq. You don’t grasp that the US is now forced to deal with Iran and Syria.
It’s not a choice. It’s not a matter of arguing with the premise, it’s that neither you nor anyone else “can find ways to make it happen,” when “it” is to refuse to deal with tyrants.
Reality, you see, is what happens even when you ignore it. To refuse to deal with the forces unleased in Iraq through this administration’s incompetency is not a solution — it’s more of the same head-in-the-sand approach that GOT us in this mess.
To put it another way, SCIRI is, I agree, only part of the govt, but if the US follows your advice, it enhances their stature in the country, and reduces positive US influence.
The Bush admin tried your approach, and it failed miserably. It made bad situations worse, and created new bad ones. Where Saddam H was contained and couldn’t inflict any damage anywhere, the US refusal to maintain the policy of containment now means the US is in a worse position regarding Iran and Syria. But, it could follow your advice, resutling in giving them still more power in Iraq, and make still worse the US position.
Yes, your policy is a simple one. It is also unrealistic, simplistic, unworkable, and a proven failure.
Other than that, though, I guess it has the merit of making you feel morally superior, so it’s likely to be adopted by some pundits and neocons.
benjoya – What part of “no more tyrants” didn’t you understand?
tubino – I get your point. It’s impossible not to play nice with tyrants. I have an idea, then. Why don’t you get the heck out of the way while folks liek me give it a try, okay? Your way hasn’t worked very well, as several decades of genocide and hatred for the UNited States have amply proven. So go ahead and give us a shot at scorining the tyrants and see where that gets us in thirty years.
You’ll have to demonstrate where we applied the principle, then failed at it in order to call it a “proven failure”.
jimmie claims, “The last poll said they’d like us out in a year, providing the government is stable enough to run by itself.”
Actually, according to recent polls, 61% of Iraqis approve of attacks on Americans.
So I guess they want us out in a year, after about a 1000 more US soldiers die in the attacks they approve of.
Anyway, back on topic: you don’t like the harsh reality of the ISG report. What would YOU like to have seen the report say? What is your plan for success by shunning the powers in the region?
just making sure. so you denounce president bush for welcoming king abdullah to crawford, correct? i wish your principled stand would have been adopted by the president, but that wasn’t gonna happen, i think we can all agree.
and somehow we can deal with “the people” of iraq but not ba’athists or iranian sympathizers. i think my kurdish apartheid government proposal is all that’s left.
jimmie,
I look forward to your explanation on how you’re going to effectively counter the tyranny of the Taliban in Afghanistan without dealing with Uzbekistan (sp?).
I look forward to your explanation on how you woudl have dealt with Saddam H.
I look forward to your explanation on how the US will become more effective in Iraq by withdrawing its influence.
I look forward to your explanation about how the Bush invasion of Iraq wasn’t exactly what you’re calling for, and exactly what Bush said it was. Bush ignored policies of dealing with tyrants, said so, and then did so. The result is the mess in Iraq.
The Bush admin followed your policy with N Korea, and gave them a nice big window to develop nuclear weapons. Thanks, George!
And of course, the best for last:
I look forward to your explanation of how you would deal with democratically-elected forces that you believe are tyrannical. It can happen any time, it happened with Hitler, and it has happened many times since. Just look at the election victories of Hezbollah, Hamas, the SCIRI, and many more. I’m not saying these are tyrannical, but YOU are, I think. Disengagement simply gives them room to thrive. Illness will take Castro before the US policy of non-engagement does, after all these decades.
Been tried, and failed.
But you’re still dodging the initial question.
tubino – You can look. As a matter of fact, help yourself to my archives, where you’ll find the answers to most of your questions.
My answer to “dealing” with them is very simple. I would not “deal” with them. I would not seek them out to talk to them. I would not treat them as if they were in the least bit legitimate to me or my interests. I would, in fact, use every means at my disposal to undermine them and their interests.
It actually astounds me that you seem to be wholly endorsing treating those who truck with genodical killers, the folks who intentionally blow up women and children, and those who oppress innocents as folks we should talk to as if all was hunky-dory. But, hey, we’ve seen just how that’s worked out for thirty years, haven’t we?
And you’ve still not demonstrated how, at any point, we have firmly decided not to deal favorably with tyrants and had it “fail”.
jimmie,
I notice that you steadfastly refuse to grant any legitimacy to democracy where you don’t like the results. You just pretend you don’t have to deal with it. Very Bush-like.
You are dodging the essential contradiction of Bush’s policy, where it matches yours. Very Bush-like.
And besides, you still think the US is much more powerful than it is. Refusing to deal with the reality of the world is no solution. Iraq was the experiment, and you can see the result yourself. Except, of course, that you CAN’T see it, because you still can’t face up to what your own policy leads to.
North Korea hopes the US always follows your policy. So does Iran. Osama bin Laden LOVES your policy. Your policy kept Castro in power for decades. Hugo Chavez adores your policy. The Ba’athists in Iraq thrive on your policy. SCIRI knows it is safe as long as the US follows your policy. If the Brits had followed your policy, the IRA would still be a very active terrorist group.
I happen to want a better world than that.
You’re misreading me, tubino. Again.
I’m not pretending to not have to deal with it. I would choose specifically not to deal with it. There is a difference and it’s important. I”m not closing my ears and singing loudly so I don’t have to acknowledge tyranny. I’m looking it directly in the eyes and telling it that I will no longer pretend that its interests and mine coincide in any way.
See, one of the beauties of democracy is that we may choose with what countries we associate, regardless of how they get their government. As an extreme example, just because Hitler’s Germany was still democratic (at least in name) does not mean that we had to deal with it as if we believed it legitimate.
I do see where my policy might leads and I intend on a more thorough analysis of that very question as soon as I have the opportunity to do so.
But, it’s worth noting that Osama bin Laden, the Ba’athists, and SCIRI exist in their current forms because the UNited States coddled tyrants with a “realist” policy.
Crud.
Tubino, my spam moderation filter grabbed your last two comments and I have not the foggiest idea how to retrieve them. I apologize for that.
I”ll reply in brief and please, feel free to restate your comments as you please.
Regarding China and the potential effect on the world’s economy should we cease dealing with them. First, I’m not particularly concerned abut the world’s economy. The nations of the world can choose their own side of the argument and I happen to think that we make a better deal than the tyrants. I certainly see no immense harm in something as simple as revoking China’s MFN status as a starting point. If they want to play economic hardball, they’d certainly find us a tougher nut to crack. Despite their size, our economy is more important ot them than theirs is to us.
On your other point, of dealing when tyrants only when we need to, I can only say that’s always been our policy. Unfortunately our Presidents and Congress have defined “need” rather broadly.
I’m saying that tyranny is as large a danger to our national interest now as Communism or Nazism was then. I realize that’s a big step to make but it’s certainly not an unreasonable one.
What would happen if Moktada al Sadr were to be eliminated with extreme prejudice? Is there a remote possibility that a small window of opportunity might be created? All of the corruption that is a part of the present system of government seems destined to implode at some point in the very near future anyway. Would it be to risky to elimate al Sadr? Would it simply be a case of another fanatic taking his place ? I’ve read lately that day to day control is no longer the reality but it seems at times the more information that we read the more murky the entire dynamic appears-at least to this Westerner with a rudimentary understanding of the Islamic elements involved in the mix. Thank you for the opportunity to pose my questions and make my observations. dpl
> What would happen if Moktada al Sadr were to be eliminated
> with extreme prejudice?
If al Sadr were assassinated, his followers including all the Mahdi Army would rise up and unleash a wave of violence far outshadowing the current dismal levels.
And that violence would be inflicted on anyone and everyone perceived as enemies.
What I am wondering, is why we don’t see more mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone. There were a couple of car bombs inside the green zone in recent weeks, but why don’t we see more attacks from outside?
And the Mahdi Army hasn’t risen up twice already? I don’t think it has much more “rise up” left to go.
The other things is, we know where the Mahdi Army lives. We know where to find them. We’re just not finding them because we, for reasons I still cannot fathom, allowed Mookie to evade a murder warrant and establish himself inside the legitimate government.
Should Mookie’s face be gracing the back of a milk carton? Without certainty. Will it? Probably not. We’ve lost the courage to fight the terrorists in Iraq, for the most part. We’re acting like mealy-mouthed lying cowards and the various factions in iraq are acting accordingly.