It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Iraq study group has released its findings

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
The Iraq study group headed by James Baker has released it report to the general public. The report concludes that the present strategy is failing and negations should be opened with Syria and Iran. The report also concludes that US troops could be removed from a combat role by 2008.
 



news.bbc.co.uk
The 142-page report includes 79 recommendations, of which three are key:

# A change in the primary mission of US forces in Iraq to enable it to begin to move combat forces out responsibly

# Prompt action by the Iraqi government to achieve reconciliation

# New and enhanced diplomatic efforts in the region
The report offers no hard timetable for a pullout of US forces, but says that combat troops could withdraw by early 2008.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Well well after all this time this is what the so called Baker report has come up with they seem to be as clueless as the Bush admin. Opening negations with Iran and Syria is a bad idea both those countries are contributing to the civil war in Iraq or at the very least being unhelpful.

A political solution has proven to be out of the question and given that many people think a military solution isn't possible there is now only one possible ending if the US adopts the reports recommendations or continues with the present strategy.

If the coalition dose one of the above the end of the civil war in Iraq could make the fall of Saigon look like a nice walk in the park on a sunny day. The best option now would be to partition Iraq along tribal lines and have plans in place to deal with security in each region.

Remember that the Iraqi security forces are poorly trained due to the focus being on sheer numbers rather then quality and that at some point there going to have to stand or fall on there own.

Related News Links:
www.cnn.com
news.bbc.co.uk

[edit on 6-12-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 6-12-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 6-12-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 6/12/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   

The best option now would be to partition Iraq along tribal lines and have plans in place to deal with security in each region.

It's bizarre that this was the plan before the invasion? Odd... but I don't believe in odd things. Another achievment, if they achieve it, for the globalists traitors! YAY!

So to achieve their plan, they fueled the civil war... you remember the british commandos who were caught with explosives material and arrested by the iraqi police forces and then rescued by about 100 british soldiers? It's engineered! They ignited the civil war, and I'm willing to bet that they posed the bomb on the sacred mosque that led to 1000s of deads back in february.


[edit on 6-12-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I agree that the so call commission after spending tax payer money to do their so call study . . . all they came out with was nothing more than blah, blah and more blah.

Same old same old BS. Nobody wants to given and ultimatum to president bush.

Perhaps the newly elected congress will step on the issue and set a time line.

Pitiful.

What many do not understand that many of the commision members are Carlyle men, all they are doing is protecting their many investments.



posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   


Like ANYTHING those bozos are saying/recommending is EVER going to come to pass.

It just doesn't address any of the issues that were supposed to be addressed.

If the cornerstone of a 'policy' doesn't deal with the reality of the situation on the ground (Such as your basic bloodthirsty nature of 'Arab culture'... or their mendacity).

The only way to stop the killing due to the open civil war among the innumerable factions... Would be to release Saddam. He totally understands what needs to be done.

He would calm the situation inside 6 weeks... Would have the entire country under his authority inside 6 months.

Lastly, not recognizing the true source of the incitement (Iran + Syria + jihadists)... As evidenced by the weapons systems/casualties in play during the Lebanon incident...

Just another farce... just another parody... like the UN.




posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I actually agree with you in some of your points, golemina, many experts feels that the study just like the study from the 9/11 commision will go into oblivion.


Ex

posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I would love to know exactly what the commission advised!

How do you negotiate with a minority insurgency,
that controls the mass uneducated populace through religion???

Is overwhelming force the answer?
and if so........when???

Is total with drawl the answer?
Leaving the population the chance to stand up for themselves
and let them sort it out!

Ideas????????



posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Be honest but,
Is there really anything they 'can' advise which is going to make the situation any better?

there's nothing, absoltuely NOTHING anyone can do to improve the situation on the ground now.

It is a real pandora's box...

your screwed if you put more troops in attempting to squash the insurgency,
and your screwed if you pull out with a rapid reaction force.

Bush is being FORCED to play Iran and Syria into the mix, but they have declared they will SO LONG as iran meets certain benchmarks.

well jee's....
nuclear proliferation coming to mind, says to me Iran will immediately FAIL these benchmarks.

Syria's help of hezbollah and the Anti Israel factions will also make them VOID!

Bush gave the perfect political answer,

'' we like the proposals, they are a possible step forward, and we will investigate them ''

which means, we will read them, then make up our own mind what direction to take.

excuse me for being rather suspicous.. but the course that has been taken since sept10 2001, has dont NOTHING but plunge the UNITED STATES into a big barrel of manure.

Febel peasants..
You allowed this man to take your country, and your reputation into Iraq, believing he would pave the road to victory.
Youve followed him all the way to now.. where there's no chance of victory only failure.

He wont even admit its come to that...

And your bagging the commissions because they couldnt come up with an answer on how to win?

simple,

This is going to be the worst action ever undertaken by the united states in its history.
One that your childeren will be paying the price for.

Our stupidity, allowed this man to get us into this much trouble.



posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ex
How do you negotiate with a minority insurgency,
that controls the mass uneducated populace through religion???


You cant negotiate with extremists for the simple reason that people that blow themselves up in market places don't want to become a apart of the political process. Despite the last three years some people continue to think other wise.

Looking for a political solution rather then a military solution was/is another mistake that has led to the mess in Iraq. Of course some say that a military solution isn't possible in Iraq and I'm inclined to agree with them due to the fact that to many civilians have and will infer in the running of the war , the lack of quality military leaders and public opinion .
A military solution needed to be in place 3 years ago.
Had there been some genuine signs of the security situation improving in Iraq public opinion will have been more supportive of the occupation.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I always say that the worst mistake Bush did, what when right after the successful take over Baghdad and with not casualties on our side . . . he allowed the people to start going wild . . . when the military asked Bush what they should do . . . he told them nothing because they were repressed for 40 years . . .

Whomever told him to do that just killed in that moment any success of post invasion Iraq.

Why? because the people were still afraid and control . . . but when they were allowed to do the looting and ransacking in front of our soldiers with not repercussions they lost their fear to authority. . .

Then leaving the borders open to blame Al-qaida of anything that was happening was nothing than another stupid mistake.


The people in Iraq were not ready to be free yet after the invation. They needed to get into the process of what freedom was gradualy.

Now . . . I am sorry to say but Iraq will never find peace within its own borders.


[edit on 8-12-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   
The thing that is making Iraqis violently upset, not to exclude the whole Middle East is the fact that the US is over there at all.

It is considered an occupation by them.

If we get out of there, we will get rid of the most of the reason for the violence.

They can deal with the rest.

It would be just like if Iraqis tried to occupy the US, they'd probably experience insurgency here. Then they would say 'if we leave the violence will get worse'.

No it won't. Just leave, get out, vamoos.

I can guarantee you that we are either going to do it now or do it later, when we get to the same place that we did with Vietnam, exiting in a panic.

The advantage of doing now is getting to use our own time table.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by c3hamby
No it won't. Just leave, get out, vamoos.



I agree with you, but is one difference that stands with Iraq and it was no an issue with Vietnam. OIL.

The private interest behind this war will rather have our soldiers dying for them as long as they get a change to control that OIL.

To them our troops and us the American people . . . are nothing but numbers and expendable.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043



I agree with you, but is one difference that stands with Iraq and it was no an issue with Vietnam. OIL.

The private interest behind this war will rather have our soldiers dying for them as long as they get a change to control that OIL.



I have to agree with you. When Bush Sr went into Iraq I didn't think it was about that and it really was about him being evil.

Now I am convinced it's about oil.

The problem, in addition to private interests, is that I think at some level, the average American has to be in denial about this.

The truth is that we do need oil, and as long as we're going to be dependent on oil like we are, then the blood for the oil we're getting is on our hands as well.

This is why we have to insist on getting out.

And why we have to demand on not only full ufo disclosure, but the release of those technologies that will correct this stupid situation.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   
James Baker and his law firm are the laywers for Saudi Arabia. When the 9-11 families filed suit, Baker's firm was hired to fight them. That, coupled with Cheney running over there at their command, gives me serious pause!

As far as the panel, What a Joke! A bunch of political has beens, and not a military mind in the bunch. At least with the Muslim's fighting amongst themselves the rest of the world may get a reprieve.



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
James Baker and his law firm are the laywers for Saudi Arabia.


Exactly, this people are only there to protect their failing investments in Iraq when it comes to oil.



As far as the panel, What a Joke! A bunch of political has beens, and not a military mind in the bunch.


Don't forget they are also, many Carlyle group boys.


My theory is that they got together to see if they could savage any of the already private interest invested in the war.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join