ISG about to report (don't hold your breath)

Well, well, well.

The Iraq Study Group is poised - poised, I say - to deliver its report to George "the Decider" Bush.

And at this point, one has to wonder, what are they for?

(Not, "who are they?" We already had a go at that one. And, for a while, it was fun.)

According to this article from the NYT, their findings are going to be merely advisory. It's all so encouraging, though:

“I think everyone felt good about where we ended up,” one person involved in the commission’s debates said after the group ended its meeting. “It is neither ‘cut and run’ nor ‘stay the course.’ ”

What is it then? "Sneak out while they're not looking?" I'm glad the feelgood factor in the room was high, though. It would really spoil my day to think that they might be sitting in their room all biting their nails to the quick and thinking "what're we gonna doooooo?"

No, their real problem was with "the Decider", it seems. They've had the bright idea that perhaps Bush might actually talk to some of the other states (yup, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia even) to see if they can help calm things down in a country that is devouring itself in a rabid frenzy. But hold on just a cotton-pickin' minute! I mean, Incurious George doesn't mind telling people what to do, he's the decider and the "leader of the free world" (pardon me while I laugh up my sleeve)... but actually listen to other people? Brown people at that? People from the axis of evil?

As described by the people involved in the deliberations, the bulk of the report by the Baker-Hamilton group focused on a recommendation that the United States devise a far more aggressive diplomatic initiative in the Middle East than Mr. Bush has been willing to try so far, including direct engagement with Iran and Syria. Initially, those contacts might be part of a regional conference on Iraq or broader Middle East peace issues, like the Israeli-Palestinian situation, but they would ultimately involve direct, high-level talks with Tehran and Damascus.

Mr. Bush has rejected such contacts until now, and he has also rejected withdrawal, declaring in Riga, Latvia, on Tuesday that while he will show flexibility, “there’s one thing I’m not going to do: I’m not going to pull the troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete.”

Oh... he might be able to get his head around a "far more aggressive diplomatic initiative" (am I the only one who sees that phrase as something of an oxymoron?). That certainly sounds like telling people what to do. The trouble with that is, the US has, without the tiniest scintilla of doubt, made such a heaving, twitching, bloody mess of Iraq (and it's not like they weren't warned), that a "far more aggressive diplomatic initiative" might not get 'em much more than the old finger. I mean, the traditional US idea of diplomacy is based around the opening offer of "do what we say or we'll invade you/bomb you back to the Stone Age/flush your economy down the toilet". That would be Iraq, Pakistan and Ireland, respectively, btw.

So, I think a sensitive approach is not terribly likely, based on past form. Pity John Bolton's wasting his talents at the UN. They could just send him in to scream and throw things at people until they give in.

But doesn't it warm your heart to know that Bush isn't "going to pull the troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete”?

How will he know when that is? No buildings left standing in Iraq? Population down to 3,000? I mean, I thought the mission was complete back in late spring 2003... or is "mission accomplished" somehow subtly different from "mission complete"? Am I just not getting this? It seems that

Commission members have said in recent days that they had to navigate around such declarations, or, as one said, “We had to move the national debate from whether to stay the course to how do we start down the path out.”

I can imagine the brave boys (and girl) of the ISG just bracing for impact every time the Decider opened his mouth, frankly. And then racking their brains to see how they were going to "navigate around" each new gaffe.

... So... no definite timetable for withdrawal, apparently. But they want to give the Iraqis the impression that it's going to be soon, so the Iraqis can get their collective act together and start running the country properly. How they propose to do this when half their police force is moonlighting as sectarian militias and death squads, I don't know. I think, er, human rights training (always a good option if your militias are out of control) might help.

And of course, the nature of that "path out" is not exactly clear.

The report leaves unstated whether the 15 combat brigades that are the bulk of American fighting forces in Iraq would be brought home, or simply pulled back to bases in Iraq or in neighboring countries. (A brigade typically consists of 3,000 to 5,000 troops.) From those bases, they would still be responsible for protecting a substantial number of American troops who would remain in Iraq, including 70,000 or more American trainers, logistics experts and members of a rapid reaction force.

Now, I don't know about you, but I have known for some time that there are several (upwards of a dozen) very large, well-fortified deep desert bases in Iraq. It's always been clear that real, proper withdrawal is never gonna happen. So no surprise to see the bases get name-checked there. How troops on these deep desert bases are going to protect "a substantial numer of American troops who would remain in Iraq" without, oh, I don't know, Star Trek-style transporters, I don't know.

But that might be me just being militarily naive, ignorant even.

Oh, and stationing US troops in neighbouring countries. That's a good one. "Yo, Assad, we need to keep some of our boys in your place, that ok?" Hmmm... Iran? Don't think so. Saudi Arabia? Well, they did take some US troops before, but it was actually (whisper this one real quiet now) a victory for al-Qaeda when US troops left Saudi soil. I mean, we want things to calm down in the region, don't we?

Mind you... to properly pacify Baghdad, they've got to move, er, more troops in there.

Could this be one of those situations where "pulling our troops out" is actually a euphemism for "putting more troops in?

And then, there's the whole issue of the "timeline", a concept so divisive that Baker and Hamilton had to put their collective foot down over it. Bush doesn't want one, so there's no point. (Like I said, what are these people for?)

As one senior American military officer involved in Iraq strategy said, “The question is whether it doesn’t look like a timeline to Bush, and does to Maliki.”

It's crazy enough to be true, dammit.

So, to sum up:

• it's not "cut and run"
  
• or "stay the course"
  
• the troops are being pulled out
  
• or back to deep desert bases
  
• or to an unspecified neighbour country
  
• or more troops will be brought in and
  
• Bush will engage in "aggressive diplomacy" (for him, is there any other kind?)
  
• er...
  
• that's it.
  

Let me ask you: should one of the goals of diplomatic talks be to have all parties walk away with some shred of dignity?

Iran looks at this as an opportunity to embarass the US.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

External Source

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Sunday Iran was ready to help the United States and Britain in Iraq but only if they pledged to change their attitude and withdraw their troops.

"The Iranian nation is ready to help you get out of that swamp (in Iraq) on one condition ... you should pledge to correct your attitude," Ahmadinejad said in a televised speech to a parade of the Basij religious militia.

today.reuters.com...

I think we can all predict what Bush's reaction to those demands would be.

Yup, saving face is much more important than saving Iraqi lives.

Oh, the US should be allowed to walk away with some shred of dignity? I've never heard such self-serving nonsense in my life. It's pathetic. The US threatens to invade Iran and then expects them to co-operate in cleaning up the mess they made? The US has got people inside Iran right now trying to destabilise the regime, and you want them to just roll over?

Get real.

The US is guilty of war crimes compunded by incompetence, and now they want people they have deliberately made enemies to help them out. "Shred of dignity" indeed. What about Iran's dignity? More to the point, what about their security.

Sometimes the inability of Americans to see the other side of the coin is nothing short of breathtaking. Iran is being threatened by the US, their close neighbour is being plunged into a civil war that could engulf the region... of course they want the US to change their attitude. The US really ought to be eating humble pie about now. They should be admitting their mistakes and looking to forge honest relationships. They should be damn well prepared to lose a little bit of dignity to atone for the royal ####-up they've made of Iraq.

Hence the points I made earlier on about "aggressive diplomacy". The US has always gone by the maxim made famous by one of Nixon's cronies, "when you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow". Well, guess what? It doesn't always work. Sometimes you have to climb down of your high horse and eat a nice big helping of humble pie, just to get along.

I have little doubt that Bush will be far too spoiled and arrogant to even consider that kind of approach.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by rich23]

Originally posted by rich23
Yup, saving face is much more important than saving Iraqi lives.

Oh, the US should be allowed to walk away with some shred of dignity? I've never heard such self-serving nonsense in my life. It's pathetic. The US threatens to invade Iran and then expects them to co-operate in cleaning up the mess they made? The US has got people inside Iran right now trying to destabilise the regime, and you want them to just roll over?

Get real.

Sorry, I was just responding to the many threads on ATS that says we must change our ways "because the world hates the US".

And I totally forgot that you would like to see the US embarassed at every turn.

Where has the US threatened to invade Iran? As for destabilizing their regime, I hope they succeed.

The US is guilty of war crimes compunded by incompetence, and now they want people they have deliberately made enemies to help them out. "Shred of dignity" indeed. What about Iran's dignity? More to the point, what about their security.

I couldn't care less about Iran's dignity or security. Remember, this is a regime that openly sponsors terrorism.

Sometimes the inability of Americans to see the other side of the coin is nothing short of breathtaking.

And sometimes the ploy to deflect the debate onto what the US is guilty of as a means of justifying acts of terrorism becomes so transparent that it is ridiculous.

Iran is being threatened by the US, their close neighbour is being plunged into a civil war that could engulf the region... of course they want the US to change their attitude.

The current internecine violence in Iraq would have happened even if the US would have left the day after Saddam was captured. And Iran is fueling it with training and arms because it is in Iran's best interests to have a destabilized Iraq.

The US really ought to be eating humble pie about now. They should be admitting their mistakes and looking to forge honest relationships. They should be damn well prepared to lose a little bit of dignity to atone for the royal ####-up they've made of Iraq.

Yes, they should apologize to the American people for allowing the war to be run by a bunch of US-hating apologists and left-wing politicians instead of fighting the war the right way.

[edit on 1-12-2006 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by rich23
The US threatens to invade Iran and then expects them to co-operate in cleaning up the mess they made? The US has got people inside Iran right now trying to destabilise the regime...


The US is guilty of war crimes compunded by incompetence, and now they want people they have deliberately made enemies to help them out.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by rich23]

Talk about ignorance and incompetence... do you have one single shred of proof to back up any of this crap? If so, I, and many other people, would LOVE to see it!

Look, we know... you hate America, Western culture, freedom and democracy - that much is apparent from your pointless and tiresome tirades and rants. We also see that you are an unabashed apologist for people who openly espouse the notion that hundreds of millions of westerners should be killed simply because they won't embrace Islam as the one true religion. And we equally understand your inability to openly and objectively employ logic and reason to the overall situation when making your assessments. All of these things are painfully obvious.

So, my advice to you - swear off your citizenship and pack up your belongings and go join the Al Qeada. They would love to have you. I, joined by millions, have had my fill of the likes of you and your sorely misinformed ilk. Your freedom and the ability to be so publicly wrong has been provided to you by the very people who are attempting to bring FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY to that third world sewer! you would do well to not piss on their efforts!

Originally posted by jsobecky
Sorry, I was just responding to the many threads on ATS that says we must change our ways "because the world hates the US".

Sorry, I totally forgot that the rest of the world "hates you for your freedoms." (You actually believe that? It's pitiful.) There are plenty of reasons why the US is unpopular, but the ones you want to hear are: we're just jealous, and you're misunderstood. Ahhhh, there there.

Where has the US threatened to invade Iran? As for destabilizing their regime, I hope they succeed.

This is actually quite tedious. Have you really missed all the threads on ATS, let alone articles elsewhere, talking about US threats to Iran? How it was part of "Securing the Realm" and "Rebuilding America's Defenses"? How Bush and Cheney are actually having battle plans constantly updated, not content with the carnage he's created in Iraq? That these plans involve using nuclear weapons?

The Next War

Articles by Seymour Hersh and others have revealed that, as in both those earlier cases, the president has secretly directed the completion, though not yet execution, of military operational plans—not merely hypothetical “contingency plans” but constantly updated plans, with movement of forces and high states of readiness, for prompt implementation on command—for attacking a country that, unless attacked itself, poses no threat to the United States: in this case, Iran.

According to these reports, many high-level officers and government officials are convinced that our president will attempt to bring about regime change in Iran by air attack; that he and his vice president have long been no less committed, secretly, to doing so than they were to attacking Iraq; and that his secretary of defense is as madly optimistic about the prospects for fast, cheap military success there as he was in Iraq.

Even more ominously, Philip Giraldi, a former CIA official, reported in The American Conservative a year ago that Vice President Cheney’s office had directed contingency planning for “a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons” and that “several senior Air Force officers” involved in the planning were “appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objection.”

Several of Hersh’s sources have confirmed both the detailed operational planning for use of nuclear weapons against deep underground Iranian installations and military resistance to this prospect, which led several senior officials to consider resigning. Hersh notes that opposition by the Joint Chiefs in April led to White House withdrawal of the “nuclear option”—for now, I would say. The operational plans remain in existence, to be drawn upon for a “decisive” blow if the president deems it necessary.

I couldn't care less about Iran's dignity or security. Remember, this is a regime that openly sponsors terrorism.

Fortunately, your opinion is not really at issue here. What matters is the volte-face proposed by the Iraq Survey Group. If the US wants Iran to help it secure Iraq, then maybe they should play nice rather than make noises about invading. Because we've seen what invading does. It just messes things up really badly.

And sometimes the ploy to deflect the debate onto what the US is guilty of as a means of justifying acts of terrorism becomes so transparent that it is ridiculous.

Show me any part of any of my posts where I've justified acts of terrorism. Please.

The current internecine violence in Iraq would have happened even if the US would have left the day after Saddam was captured.

Well... nice crystal ball you have there. Actually, by early summer 2003, Sunni and Shia were uniting to drive out the invaders until a little clandestine campaign set them against each other. There were reports of the US using Iraqi policemen as dupes to drive car-bombs into specific areas of Baghdad, one of the mosques was bombed by men in Iraqi police uniforms, and there were those two British soldiers caught dressed as Arabs, with explosives in the boot of their car, who were arrested and who were broken out of an Iraqi jail by force (also a war crime). However, judicious encouragement of sectarian death squads, a bombing campaign, and a stop-start policy of de-Ba'athification followed by re-Ba'athification served to destroy all hope that the factions wouldn't get stuck in to some vicious sectarianism.

And Iran is fueling it with training and arms because it is in Iran's best interests to have a destabilized Iraq.

Just how is it beneficial to Iran to have a violent civil war raging on their doorstep? Are they equipped to handle the million-plus refugees that have come streaming across the border? I doubt it. Please answer this question. I am agog to know what benefits they gain from their neighbour embroiled in a violent civil war.

Yes, they should apologize to the American people for allowing the war to be run by a bunch of US-hating apologists and left-wing politicians instead of fighting the war the right way.

Sorry... but wasn't Rumsfeld running the war? Since when did he become a US-hating apologist? Or a left-wing politician? Did he join IWW when nobody was looking?

As for running the war "the right way", I'd love to know what you would have done differently, although I suspect it will come down to "Kill more Iraqis... kill them in their sleeeeeeep... kill... kill..."

Originally posted by rich23
Sorry, I totally forgot that the rest of the world "hates you for your freedoms." (You actually believe that? It's pitiful.) There are plenty of reasons why the US is unpopular, but the ones you want to hear are: we're just jealous, and you're misunderstood. Ahhhh, there there.

If you're going to pretend to have the capacity to debate, at least don't insert words where they haven't been spoken.

I'll leave it as an exercise for you to find where you misquoted me.

This is actually quite tedious. Have you really missed all the threads on ATS, let alone articles elsewhere, talking about US threats to Iran? How it was part of "Securing the Realm" and "Rebuilding America's Defenses"? How Bush and Cheney are actually having battle plans constantly updated, not content with the carnage he's created in Iraq? That these plans involve using nuclear weapons?

There are thousands employed to develop contingency plans. There are even plans for Canada and Jamaica.

The existence of a plan does not an action make. And Seymour Hersh is a putz.

I couldn't care less about Iran's dignity or security. Remember, this is a regime that openly sponsors terrorism.

Fortunately, your opinion is not really at issue here.

Then don't wail about "What about Iran's dignity? More to the point, what about their security. "

Show me any part of any of my posts where I've justified acts of terrorism. Please.

Your obsequious support for and defense of the Iranian regime.

Well... nice crystal ball you have there. Actually, by early summer 2003, Sunni and Shia were uniting to drive out the invaders until a little clandestine campaign set them against each other.

It must not have been too strong of a plan, if a little clandestine operation took it down.

Just how is it beneficial to Iran to have a violent civil war raging on their doorstep? Are they equipped to handle the million-plus refugees that have come streaming across the border? I doubt it. Please answer this question. I am agog to know what benefits they gain from their neighbour embroiled in a violent civil war.

Iraq has proven oil reserves of 112 billion barrels of oil and possible uncharted reserves of up to 400 billion barrels. That's more than SA. Iran would love to control that oil.

You mean you don't believe the rest of the world hates you for your freedoms? There's a surprise. Perhaps I've actually done you an injustice by assuming that. Why does the rest of the world hate the US, then? I shall be interested to hear your rationale.

Originally posted by jsobecky
The existence of a plan does not an action make. And Seymour Hersh is a putz.

Good comeback on the Seymour Hersh thing. Mmm. What was it about my campacity for debate?

Is the reason you don't like him that he exposed the My Lai and Abu Ghraib atrocities? The guy has, whether you care for him or not, some good sources and a great track record, plus a Pulitzer, so some people think he's doing something right. He is convinced that it has been a goal of the Administration to do something about Iran, and from what his inside sources tell him, invasion looks more like a matter of when rather than if. Over the summer, the PR machine cranked up into action to make everyone worried about Iran, just like over Saddam, and I think, while the urge to invade may have lessened after the mid-terms and thanks to civil war becoming undeniable (unless you're GWB, in which denial is a way of life), it has not gone away.

As for the US' dignity, why is it worth more than Iran's? You don't care about Iran's dignity, and all that does is show that you are unable to see any other points of view than the stereotypical insular American. This kind of boorishness does much to explain why the US is so unpopular around the world.

Show me any part of any of my posts where I've justified acts of terrorism. Please.

Your obsequious support for and defense of the Iranian regime.

First, I don't support, obsequiously or otherwise, the Iranian regime. I have tried to counter propaganda against them, because I don't want yet another war waged by the US on a small, oil-rich country. You can't tell the difference: I'm not surprised. And you haven't shown any part of any of my posts where I've justified acts of terrorism.

It must not have been too strong of a plan, if a little clandestine operation took it down.

Sunni and Shia had been living in a forced but nonetheless stable peace for many years under Saddam. There was certainly some resentment between the two factions. I don't think I mentioned the word "plan". But there were calls from leading Imams for the two factions to work together against the US. The clandestine campaign nipped the nascent alliance in the bud, and sowed the seeds of the civil war that is now underway.

Iraq has proven oil reserves of 112 billion barrels of oil and possible uncharted reserves of up to 400 billion barrels. That's more than SA. Iran would love to control that oil.

No, you're projecting US motives here rather than trying to think about what would motivate Iran, who have a vivid object lesson playing out right now about what it would mean for another country to try and occupy or control Iraq. If the US can't control Iraq, what makes you think Iran could - the two countries fought each other to a standstill, remember? (While the US sold arms to both sides.) Plus, they have quite a lot of oil of their own... and they're not as thirsty for it as the US. They will also be keenly aware that the US and Israel are considering military action because of what is to all intents and purposes a peaceful nuclear programme.

Their motives, imo, are to ensure that the Shia can defend themselves against the Sunni, who seem to be launching into an incredibly destructive mode, beset with Shia death squads and a hostile occupier: and against the occupying forces.