About as bad as advertised
Paul Mirengoff
I've read the executive summary of the Iraq Study Group report. That's probably all I'll have time to read today.
According to the summary, the ISG is making two recommendations. First, it's recommending that the U.S. actively engage Iraq's neighbors -- the only two it names are Syria and Iran -- without preconditions in order to induce them to help stabilize the situation in Iraq. The report states that the U.S. has "discentives and incentives" available with which to influence these countries. The only such incentive or disincentive mentioned in the summary is "dealing directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict."
Thus, the ISG report lives up to its advanced billing. The best the "wise men" can come up with is to have our worst enemies try to help us stabilize Iraq. And, apparently, the primary inducement will be to pressure Israel into creating a Palestinian state (as if Iran really cares about that). It's difficult to say which is more pronounced, the craven nature of this recommendation or its lack of realism.
The other main recommendation calls for a change in our military mission for the express purpose not of succeeding, but "to enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly." ...
In other words I don't need to go out in the cold after more TP after all; I just need to print a copy of the report.
Iraq Study Group report released
Allahpundit
It’s available for download here. The press conference has just started — and is being carried live by all three networks. An anxious media wonders: will Baker be able to encapsulate the pessimism of the report in one killer pithy soundbite? [Update: Bingo. See below.] If he does, you know who’ll have the video.
Updates coming.
Update: And just as I type that, Lee Hamilton declares, “Our ship of state has hit rough waters. It must now chart a new way forward.” Jackpot.
Update: It sounds like the leaks were accurate. They want a significant number of troops withdrawn soon — ideally within 16 months — and the rest redeployed to advise and support the Iraqi army. (Minor surprise: first they want a minor increase.) And of course they want us to talk to Iran and Syria, an initiative which most Americans (including most Republicans) support. Says Moran: “You will excuse me if I believe that talking to Syria while it is in the process of gobbling up its tiny Lebanese neighbor to be one of the most cynical, immoral, and ill-considered diplomatic ideas in a generation – which of course is right up Baker’s alley.” Presumably the outreach could start as early as next week, right after Iran gets done denying the Holocaust.
Verdict: success is not an option.
[...]
Update: The enduring question’s going to be whether long-term success was ever an option or whether the Sunni/Shiite divide would have gobbled up the country eventually no matter what. If Bush had sent 300,000 troops three years ago, if the jihadis and militias had been choked in their cradle and the two sides had a few years of peace to acclimate themselves to, maybe they’d have a different footing going forward. Or, with a thousand years of slaughter on the books and Iran and AQ looking to stir it up, maybe not.
We are where we are, though. Which is why relying on the Iraqi military to prevent a civil war is an exceedingly naive idea:
[...]
In the end, the Commission’s using the same strategy McCain is (allegedly), albeit in the opposite direction: he claims more troops will help, they claim fewer troops will. Bush can’t really embrace either option, though, and they know it. As things get worse, each will point to his failure to adopt their own recommendations to explain why things fell apart. Big help, but that’s his fault entirely for not having done all that he could in Iraq when the country still had the political will to do it. ...
