| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| The ISG Report -- an analysis by Richard Fernandez ("Wretcharde the Cat" of "The Belmont Club") |
| 2006-12-06 |
| Too good to summarize; go read it all. Okay, here's a taste: . . . the principal utility of this report is its succinct description of the internal and external players in Iraq and an outline of their respective goals, many of which are malevolent. As a guide to the game the ISG Report is first rate. However, the study recommendations are extremely disappointing. The report concludes from the outset that the failure of local and regional actors to act rationally,and not any obviously crazy American policy, lies at the heart of Iraqi instability and the threat of regional Sunni and Shi’a clashes. The question is whether any American redeployment — any American policy for that matter — can alter this given the premise? Not obviously, but it doesn’t keep the ISG from trying. The heart of ISG’s proposed solution is to add moving parts to the problem. . . . The normal approach to a difficult problem would be to bound or simplify it. But the ISG recommendations try the exact opposite: it adds complexity to the already complex situation. . . . |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #17 linking Iraq to a comprehensive solution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict Code words for selling out Israel. Baker's day is passed along with Lee Hamilton's. Where is a clue bat when one is needed. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-12-06 22:29 |
| #16 This is exhibit B of the Blue Ribbon Commission full employement act...Exhibit A was the 9/11 commission. |
| Posted by: mjh 2006-12-06 21:56 |
| #15 linking Iraq to a comprehensive solution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Why am I not surprised? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-12-06 21:23 |
| #14 Ah - he's opening some sort of "institute". He's gone over to the Dark Side of Think Tank Proprietor. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-12-06 21:19 |
| #13 Tommy Franks is on Fox right now - and is cherry-picking the report. He favors new emphasis on the reconstruction and economic efforts. Doesn't seem impressed with the political jaw-jaw with the nighbors idea. But says talking is better than fighting. Not playing up stronger military action. Seems to think that, domestically anyway, that this bipartisan effort was "good" for the simple reason that the screeching stopped for a minute or two. Mincing words a bit now - preferring "success" over "victory", but saying they're not all that different. Weirdness. Sounds like he's a Diplo or Pol, now. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-12-06 21:08 |
| #12 Verlaine, First of all, your BASF quote really cracks me up. Second, sorry if I've missed your input on other threads but, given your solid point you make that destroying the Sunni insurgency is a military problem we are trying to deal with in too many non-military ways, can't a case be made that Tater and the various militias that are going after the Sunni are potentially a net positive. I know they are undermining the sovereignty of the state, anti-American, pro-Iran, out of control, etc. However, the net effect might be to run the Sunni out of areas where they are causing trouble (a bit of 'ethnic cleansing' but potentially necessary) and intimidate some of their Sunni neighbors into withdrawing passive support for the insurgency. I don't necessarily agree, but wanted to throw the idea out there for discussion given your strong points. |
| Posted by: JAB 2006-12-06 20:31 |
| #11 Nimble, I've been saying that for some time, and I expect this non-event will indeed be forgotten, but long before the SOTU next January. The whole thing's DOA at the WH, of course. But there are some pernicious myths embedded in it that need to be nuked. Apparently Alan Simpson told a bloggers' conference call that things in Iraq are "spinning out of control". Huh? Hardly. Lots of things suck, but there mostly the same things that sucked 6 and 12 months ago. No governorates have seceded, no army units have splintered or refused orders, no territories are under control of adversaries when/if we care to contest it, nothing the various enemies can do is or will slow down the slow but inexorable increase in ISF capabilities, the hawza in Najaf haven't changed their opposition to the Iranian velayet-i-faqih model of governance and there's no sign it has begun to appeal to significant numbers of Iraqis, and on and on. Meanwhile, there seems to be some positive movement in Anbar (tribal alliance vs. AQ, splits in Sunni hostility to central govt. and coalition). Compared to November 2004 and select other time periods, there's far less going on and less that's troubling going on - even though the sectarian situation in Baghdad and Diyala are critical. Sorry - all this bloviation, and I've only dealt with one premise! I'll limit my rant to one more. Many, including it seems some Rantburgers, implicitly accept what I find to be extremely dubious, if not improbable - that Syria and Iran exercise any sort of control over what goes on in Iraq. This premise, of course, underlies the entire "engage Syria/Iran regional conference" stuff (minus the hallucinogenically idiotic b.s. about the Arab-Israeli conflict). I cannot see where Damascus or Tehran can deliver much of what we want, even if they tried. The various factions in Iraq are doing what they damn please for their own reasons. Former regime officers who head up insurgent cells in Mosul or Ramadi don't look to Damascus for guidance or inspiration - they have their own, mostly very practical, reasons to do what they do. They fear the only future for them in a "new" Iraq is a noose, penury, or some other thing most people would fight to avoid. Likewise, the loose constellation of thugs, criminals, and little strong-men that are associated with Sadr steal because they want the money, torture and murder because they like power and want to wreak vengeance on the Sunnis, and agitate against the coalition because it's their political card. Nothing Tehran does or says will change any of that. Like BASF, Syria and Iran don't create conflict in Iraq, they make the conflict there worse. Money and jihadi personnel and passive IR triggers and EFPs and safe havens, sure, those are factors the neighbors contribute. But motivation and real decisions about actions on the ground - doubtful. So while it's a measure of the utter silliness of public "debate" these days that this idiotic diplomatic offensive suggestion can even be advanced without widespread open derision, it's even worse than that: the premises on which the silly proposal is based are false. Everybody, from non-insane Dems to "realists" to many war supporters to WH, State, and DOD types to many in CENTCOM and MNF-I have been tirelessly searching for any solution to Iraqi security problems OTHER THAN military ones. Sorry, folks. There has never been and will never be a real solution to Iraqi security challenges that doesn't begin with the submission or real co-optation (not carving off some sissy types who will take part in a unity govt.) of the Iraqi Sunni community. Much of the oxygen for Shi'a militias and other formations will be removed when/if the 3-year war of barbarous terrorism committed, abetted, and tolerated by the Sunni community is stopped. Only way to stop it is military, not socio-economic or political. What's left of the Shi'a militia problem would be quite soluble in the context of a subdued Sunni segment. And having finally eliminated that central security problem, dealing with Sadr etc. might even be as easy as it was before in Najaf and Karbala, notwithstanding the intervening bad developments which we have mostly stood by and watched, deer-like. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2006-12-06 20:01 |
| #10 I look at who's on ths commitee and it's all the same old faces...and Vernon Jordan. Vernon Friggin Jordan. What was his recommendation? That Iraqis should get more pussy? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2006-12-06 19:54 |
| #9 When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. The ISG was stocked with compromisers and diplomats. Hence: the solution they found was to talk and compromise. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2006-12-06 19:51 |
| #8 the failure of local and regional actors to act rationally Yeah! Someone figured it out! Solution: Get the local (and hopefully regional) actors to act rationally. Or replace them. Hint: Dead people are not irrational. |
| Posted by: gorb 2006-12-06 19:41 |
| #7 I worry it will be used as cover by the Talk Us All To Death (literally) crowd. I hope you're right, NS. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-12-06 19:40 |
| #6 The report and bloviations on it have nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with DC. It will be forgotten the day after the State of the Union. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-12-06 19:28 |
| #5 Truth. Nothing left to say, plenty left to do. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-12-06 19:24 |
| #4 Would be ok if by "talking" they meant "describing big sticks and the deleterious impact that would follow use of said sticks." But Ahmadinejad has already and repeatedly stated that the choice for US is to convert or die. So, what's there to talk about? |
| Posted by: Kalle 2006-12-06 19:22 |
| #3 As I read it, the bulk of their recommendations were - and have been - the plan already. Train more IF, transfeer more responsibility to them, and back off. Talking to Syria and Iran is new, I guess, but not likely to do any good (since they're the source of a lot of the problems), and that's really the business of the Iraqi government, not us. Whether it's enough to 'win' - where 'win' is defined as a stable and humane government - only time will tell; we will have given all sides plenty of chances to act rationally, but in the end it is up to them to decide whether they want to commit suicide or not. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2006-12-06 19:03 |
| #2 The wankers will eat this shit UP. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-12-06 18:27 |
| #1 Watching Baker and Hamilton with Brit Hume on Fox right now. They're actually serious about this "dialog" with Iran and Syria. They actually think we can coopt Syria, into shutting off Hezb and helping Israel. By yapping. They seem to think we can intimidate Iran by being forceful in talks. Unfuckingbelievable. TFBS. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-12-06 18:26 |