Iraq Study Group blasts Iraqi government

The long awaited report has some surprises

from JoeUser Forums

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.

20,495 views 54 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
We didn't go on our knees to the soviet union needing their help with a mess, WHILE the soviet union was working the crowd at the UN to be allowed a nuclear weapons program. We met the Soviet Union on the playing field of mutually assured destruction. That's what we are trying to avoid with Iran.

If we went to Iran now, we'd be inviting them to say "Okay, we'll make Iraq a garden paradise, but you lay off on the nukes." Then, we;d have to deal either with what they eventually did to Israel, or we'd have to deal with what Israel did pre-emptively. I don't believe anyone with half a brain could see any useful outcome from negotiating with the Freak-In-Chief of Iran.

As for Iraq, frankly... f*ck em. I'm done. They had an opportunity that few nations ever get, and like greedy, backwards primitives fought over power and influence and the best pickings. Let them decide this for themselves, no one else should lose their life trying to make a better life for a nation not willing to do it themselves. I've supported this effort for as long as I can, but how many strikes can you give ignorant, hateful people before they are out?

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am very surprised that you (apparently) don't think it's very clearly "demonstrably in our best interest" to have a stable, functional democratic state in Iraq.

Yes, our initial goal was to remove Saddam from power. But the immediate and obvious subsequent goal is to prevent some Saddam Junior from taking his place and having Iraq be just as nasty a country after our intervention as it was before.

Of course it is by no means an easy, simple task to bestow a democratic government on a country that has spent the last 2000 or so years under some form of dictatorship and whose culture is very strongly rooted in blood ties and justice by retribution.You cannot cast that sort of thing aside like a cheap cloak; it will probably take at least a generation for a real change to take root. But having a democracy in the middle east will be like a bullet to, if not the heart, then hopefully at least the gut, of Al Qaeda; inflicting a long, slow, and painful death upon it.
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

I am very surprised that you (apparently) don't think it's very clearly "demonstrably in our best interest" to have a stable, functional democratic state in Iraq.

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.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sure it is in our interest, but the only way we will is if we deport everyone that lives there and move in a bunch of other people. They've made it quite plain by killing tens of thousands of people that they won't be satisfied with the result of any election. Why should we sacrifice any more of our soldiers for people who can't keep a sewage system running?

They don't deserve the effort at this point. The Kurds should be offered their own nation, and the rest should fend for themselves.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

It also advocates talks with Iran and Syria.

The panel is so naive and ignorant that they failed to realize that Iran and Syria are to Iraq what The USSR was to Vietnam and China was to Korea.

When will these elitist pinheads (who admit they have "no expertise") wake up to the fact that we are at war with those supplying the weapons and funds to continue killing our troops?  As long as we treat Iran and Syria as mere bystanders, we encourage their support for our enemies.

 

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is a pay me now or pay me later issue.  We leave without finishing the job, and we have Afghanistan 5 years ago.  And then we will have to go in and take them out again.  It is better to invest while the assets are in place, than to start the whole schlemiel over again in 5 years.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well part of finishing the job would have to be reorganizing Iraq's borders. The current national borders are largely arbitrary ones made up by the British and the League of Nations. These ignore the massive cultural, ethnic, and religious differences in the area now known ass Iraq. The nation as it stands will never stay stable unless it is ruled with an iron fist as it was under Saddam Hussein. The more logical solution is to break it up into smaller countries. Will there still be fighting at that point? Absolutely. But it would dramatically increase the odd of reaching an equilibrium.

 

I also agree that it is ignornat to focus our attentions only within Iraq's borders when a huge part of the destabilizing forces are poring in over the borders from Syria, Iran, and even Jordan.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
They had an opportunity that few nations ever get


Opportunity? This must be the origin of the saying, "When opportunity knocks, I hide until it goes away."

The US should have a policy of knocking down regimes that support terrorism and represent threats to the United States.


I disagree. Should Iran have a policy of knocking down regimes that represent threats to Iran? I also think that it might increase the number of threats to the United States rather than decreasing them. Several different ways: each one weakens us, or other states follow our example and start more wars, or other states band together against us, or, it turns out that decentralized and stateless actors are more dangerous in the 21st century than organized regimes.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Should Iran have a policy of knocking down regimes that represent threats to Iran?

Clearly, Iran already has such a policy.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
The panel is so naive and ignorant that they failed to realize that Iran and Syria are to Iraq what The USSR was to Vietnam and China was to Korea.


I would call them realist

Should Iran have a policy of knocking down regimes that represent threats to Iran?

Clearly, Iran already has such a policy.


When was the last regime knock down by the Iranian army?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
"When was the last regime knock down by the Iranian army?"


The Lebanese government is being unseated right now by Hezbollah. There is a constant, harrowing effort to destabilize Israel from Iran and Syria. They are both supporting terrorists trying to destabilize Iraq.

I think it is cute how selective people like Cikomyr are when it comes to stuff like this. They are "realists" when it comes to having to sit down with Iran in order to solve Iraq's problems, but when you imply that Iran is a problem, they demand to know why we'd ever think that.

If Iran wasn't involved, why would we need to talk to them? Why would it matter what Iran and Syria think? It's the influence you're denying that you're demanding we curry favor with.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
If the commission is correct about the Iraqi Government, then this adventure is lost. If the new government we enabled to cone into being is as the Baker commission states, we have failed!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would call them realist


You would.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

If the commission is correct about the Iraqi Government, then this adventure is lost. If the new government we enabled to cone into being is as the Baker commission states, we have failed!

 

And you are so excited by these prospects!

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think it is cute how selective people like Cikomyr are when it comes to stuff like this. They are "realists" when it comes to having to sit down with Iran in order to solve Iraq's problems, but when you imply that Iran is a problem, they demand to know why we'd ever think that.


I should have used past tense when I asked the question..

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.

And if Lebanon's government is overthrew, it would be a lot more Syria's fault than Iran. It's pro-Syrian opposition that calls for the change. Still, if it happens, if would be the work of Lebanon citizens (specially the million that came from Syria), and not of foreign armies/agents.

If Iran wasn't involved, why would we need to talk to them? Why would it matter what Iran and Syria think? It's the influence you're denying that you're demanding we curry favor with.


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.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
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!
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
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?
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
"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?


Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
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!"?
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
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?


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.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.


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.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.


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.