See previous.

IRAQ 'APPEASE' SQUEEZE ON W.
Niles Lathem

Click here for the Iraq Study Group Report (PDF) 

WASHINGTON - The Iraq Study Group report delivered to President Bush yesterday contains 79 separate recommendations - but not one that explains how American forces can defeat the terrorist insurgents, only ways to bring the troops home.  ...

... Reaction to the much-anticipated report was swift:

* President Bush called it a "tough" assessment of U.S. involvement in Iraq and said he would treat all of its recommendations seriously, but he didn't publicly embrace any of the proposals.

* White House spokesman Tony Snow later rejected the call for America to have open dialogue with enemy Iran, saying that could happen only after the Islamic state halted uranium enrichment.

* Democrats in Congress heartily embraced the study, saying it offered Bush some good ideas, and put the burden on him to accept some of them.

* Republicans generally had a polite but noncommittal response.

* In Iraq, U.S. troops said they didn't believe that Baghdad's own forces were prepared yet to take over security, and questioned whether GIs could come home in 2008, as the report urged.

***

In which I trash the ISG report
Bryan Preston

I don’t have much to add to what others have said in criticizing the Iraq Survey Group’s report. Much of my reaction can be summed up in short pithy words that I don’t ordinarily use. It’s a pile of this, it’s full of that, and the vaunted bipartisan Solons who met, achieved consensus and reported their solemn findings can do this or that to themselves.

But here’s a question: Since when did the United States or any country wage war by publishing its plans or suggested plans for all the world to see? Since when did the United States or any country let its enemies see internal deliberations and strategic pivots, and since when did we think our enemies shared our interests, either in one war theater or on a more broad strategic plane? Since when did we wage war by a geriatric committee of has-beens and shady Washington insiders? Since when has there been anything to talk about with the world’s two worst remaining terrorist states?

To me, the ISG report represents the end of the sole-superpower world. We’re not a superpower anymore, not if our so-called best and brightest think that this report represents anything useful, and not if we think it’s wise to put our war planning up to a body of old hands with no new ideas, and subject their findings to an international review.

I thought we voted against the international test when we rejected John Kerry? Guess not.

The ISG, with its “dialogue to consensus,” represents the worst about US policy deliberation and ultimately shows that we’re not serious about our own defense. ...

***

UN news service: Jihadis welcome Baker Commission findings
Allahpundit

Of course they do.

But until the pullout actually begins, they’ll just have to keep carbombing schoolchildren.

Insurgents and militias in Iraq on Thursday welcomed the recommendations made in a report by the Iraq Study Group that indicated that US policy in Iraq was not working and that its troops should be pulled out earlier than current projections suggest.

“The withdrawal of US troops from Iraq has been one of our foremost demands since 2004. The presence of foreign troops in our country is the reason why we continue to fight, resulting in the killing of thousands of Iraqis,” said Abu Baker, a member of Sunni insurgent group Jeyshi Muhammad (Muhammad’s Army) who declined to give his full name…

“No Muslim country should close their eyes over this occupation that is destroying the country. The occupation is not popular with us Iraqis and that is why you can see an increase in the numbers of Iraqis who have turned into fighters against the US occupation,” said Abu Ahmed, who claimed to be a member of al-Qa’eda in Iraq and declined to give his full name.

He warned that the departure of US troops is not enough and said members of the Iraqi government and parliament who are pro-US should quit their positions “to clean the government of US ideology”.

“Abu Baker.” Perfect. ...

***

Recommended reading for the President
Bryan Preston

Skip the ISG report. It’s full of bromides and nonsense about what Iran and Syria “should” do and “should” want to happen in Iraq–not about what they are doing and what they are working toward in Iraq, in Lebanon and the broader Middle East. It’s useless, Mr. President. Skip it.

Instead, if you have a little time to do a little reading during the holiday season, I’d suggest the following titles.

The Art of War, by Sun Tzu. It’s pretty clear that the basic principles Sun Tzu outlined centuries ago still apply, and it’s also clear that we’re not applying them. We’re governing by the selective leak and counter leak, and we’re debating war strategy in the headlines as if we’re discussing education policy. We’re idiots to keep running the war this way, and we’ll lose if it keeps up. Read Sun Tzu, Mr. President. And look for generals who have also read him.

The Personal Memoirs of US Grant. After firing a succession of failed generals, President Lincoln ignored press criticism and settled on Grant. Grant was a fighting general, not a dinner party general. I don’t know if there’s another Grant in today’s generation of generals, but if there is, find him and put him in charge of war policy. Grant won the civil war ugly, but he won.

Invasion, ...

***

One Cheer for the ISG?
Johnah Goldberg

I've been thinking. As many have noted, the ISG's recommendations are mostly nothing new. The draw down of troops, the imbedding, the training, the pressure on the Iraqis etc etc: all of these things are either already being tried, have been tried or are about to be tried. The report undercuts the Murtha crowd by delegitimizing the quick bug-out (AKA redeployment) option and makes staying in Iraq at least until '08 the "conventional" or "mainstream" point of view.

For Bush, isn't this the only part of the ISG report that matters? And when it comes to the actual situation in Iraq, the report basically confirms established policies of the White House and the Pentagon. So, in effect, doesn't the heralded bipartisan commission in effect give Bush the leeway to — ahem — stay the course?  ...