You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
A Perfect Failure
2006-12-02
The Iraq Study Group has reached a consensus.
by Robert Kagan & William Kristol
In the frenzied final week of the Iraq Study Group's deliberations, co-chairmen James Baker and Lee Hamilton took time out to pose for a photo spread for a fashion magazine, Men's Vogue. This might seem a dubious decision given the gravity of the moment and their self-appointed roles as the nation's saviors. The "wise men" who counseled Lyndon Johnson during Vietnam and the members of the Kissinger Commission who tried to reshape Ronald Reagan's Central American policies did not sit for Annie Leibovitz in the middle of their endeavors. Nor did they hire a mega-public relations firm to sell their recommendations (supposedly intended for the president) to the public at large, as Baker and Hamilton have done.

But we think the chairmen's self-promotion and big-time product marketing are perfectly understandable. They have to do something to distract attention from two unpleasant facts.

The first is that after nine months of deliberation and an unprecedented build-up of expectations that these sages would produce some brilliant, original answer to the Iraq conundrum, the study group's recommendations turn out to be a pallid and muddled reiteration of what most Democrats, many Republicans, and even Donald Rumsfeld and senior military officials have been saying for almost two years. Thus, according to at least six separate commission sources sent out to pre-spin the press, the Baker-Hamilton report will call for a gradual and partial withdrawal of American forces in Iraq, to begin at a time unspecified and to be completed by a time unspecified. The goal will be to hand over responsibility for security in Iraq to the Iraqis themselves as soon as this is feasible, and to shift the American role to training rather than fighting the insurgency and providing security. The decision of how far, how fast, and even whether to withdraw will rest with military commanders in Iraq, who will base their determination on how well prepared the Iraqis are to take over. Even after the withdrawal, the study group envisions keeping at least 70,000 American troops in Iraq for years to come.
Posted by:.com

#4  Right on all counts, OldSpook and N guard.

McMaster does seem like someone who understands that force and will are still the first topic in war - not jobs and electricity.

I'm hampered by limited info, but I wonder if there's a widespread split in the Army as I saw in the palace in Baghdad, between those with almost a fixation on non-military measures and those who were more practical and realized what people and environment we're dealing with.
Posted by: Verlaine   2006-12-02 22:19  

#3  FWIW, I think this commission nonsense has two functions:

1. to smoke out the spineless cowards.

2. provide political cover for whoever needs it.

1 is short term, 2 is long term. There was no chance that it's reccomendations were going to be implemented. Sort of like the moynahan commission, WRT welfare reform.

just my $0.02
Posted by: N guard   2006-12-02 10:07  

#2  The *real* solution is going to come from the pentagon group led by Colonel McMaster.

And that's theone I trust. He and the 3rd ACR did arguably the best job of it over there of any Army unit. Col McMAster "Gets It". That and he was a young pup when I served with him in GW1, but a damn fine officer. If we had more like McMaster as General Officers I bet that we'd have a lot less of the BS ROE and other hamstringing we have done to ourselves - far more effective meaning far less blood shed on BOTH sides.

Posted by: OldSpook   2006-12-02 09:28  

#1  I've won several bets (friendly and "future beers to be named later" variety) with this preposterous commission outcome. A few related ones remain to be settled, when Dubya formally rejects all of the specific recommendations.

Of course the administration should be horse-whipped for ever going along with the whole idea in the first place. It goes way beyond Bush, or Iraq, or Donks vs. Trunks. The US does not use commissions to make decisions on strategy in war - we have elections, and elected officials to do that. The familiar dodges involving base closure and perennial Social Security reform are repugnant but probably now institutionalized - but war strategy? This is insane - even if little comes of it (and as Kristol and Kagan point out, the commission exercise has been yet one more prop used by the media to flog their latest Iraq priorities).

Yet despite Bush's residual steel, I find it hard to imagine any changes in the direction of pursuing anything like victory. If the administration can watch its post-modern "counter insurgency" approach sputter and fail for over a year, helping turn Congress over to a party that may be the most lifeless and pathetic ever to win a US election, without firing anyone or trying anything different, they can probably (incredibly) continue to fiddle-f**k in Iraq now.

Leaks about re-thinking "Sunni engagement" are beyond ironic. There were many whose initial reaction to Sunni engagement was deep concern - and election turnout and unity government did nothing to change matters. Attempting to split and co-opt the Sunni community of course made sense - but as with everything in Iraq we forgot to first "set the conditions" by breaking the will of the die-hard resistance and making life intolerable for those who tolerated al Qaeda. The Sunnis who joined the government could never deliver enough to break the complex grip that fear and violence have back home.

Strategic boldness and tactical lassitude - an odd and unfortunate combination, so far ....

Posted by: Verlaine   2006-12-02 01:42  

00:00