“So if victory is not possible and not feasible, even if you could define it, then what you’re left with is to find some way to mitigate defeat.”
(Chas W. Freeman Jr., a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia and member of the ISG)
Today is the day that the Iraq Study Group will deliver its not so secret recommendations on how we can best pull out of Iraq without leaving behind a bloody mess, regional chaos, increased Iranian influence, and a helpless, toothless, Iraqi government dominated by theocrats and thugs.
This is our new battle cry; “We must mitigate defeat!”
Stirring, isn’t it? Not quite the ring that “Remember the Alamo” has but then, this is the 21st century and such patriotic and emotional displays are frowned upon by the blue blooded “wise men” of the ISG who have labored long and hard to produce this recipe for American retreat.
Many of the ISG’s bullet points have been leaked to the press already. No call for a troop increase but plenty of advice on how to train the Iraqi army as well as a push to bring combat troops home by early 2008:
The latest details to emerge from the commission’s report help flesh out a plan that also calls for the United States to withdraw nearly all combat units by early 2008 while leaving behind tens of thousands of troops to advise, train and embed with Iraqi forces. The report suggests that the Bush administration open talks with Iran and Syria about ways to end the violence in Iraq and proposes holding a regional conference to bring together all of Iraq’s neighbors.Some proposals in the report track measures that the administration is already carrying out or is considering, but several directly challenge Bush in areas in which he has refused to compromise. The president has rejected talking with Iran and Syria and has resisted linking the Iraq war to the Palestinian issue. He has dismissed timetables for troop withdrawals, although the panel cites 2008 as a goal rather than a firm deadline. He has also declined to punish Iraqis for not making progress in establishing security.
Although the study group will present its plan as a much-needed course change in Iraq, many of its own advisers concluded during its deliberations that the war is essentially already lost, according to private correspondence obtained yesterday and interviews with participants. The best the commission could put forward would be the “least bad” of many bad options, as former ambassador Daniel C. Kurtzer wrote.
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. He is a specialist at sacrificing others for the greater good; just ask the Iraqi Kurds.
And talking to the fanatical true believers in Iran (Ahmadinejad purged the foreign service last year, replacing experienced hands with ideological purists) about helping with security in Iraq is like inviting the wolf in for a drink and having Little Red Riding Hood give him a lap dance; the temptation to insinuate themselves even more into Iraqi affairs just might be too much to resist.
I don’t know if there is a way to “victory” in Iraq. Clearly the rest of the world has already made up its mind (not to mention the American media) that we have lost so that no matter what we do in Iraq, how we leave it, what we accomplish from here on out, the onus of defeat will accompany our withdrawal.
Is the ISG simply acknowledging this fact? Or are they encouraging it?
Both, probably. But in the end, it comes down to doing the best we can to bring some kind of definitive denouement to our Iraqi adventure. And it appears that at least some Democrats – whether chastened by victory or freed from having to engage in partisan sniping to differentiate themselves from Republicans – are realizing that Iraq is not Viet Nam and that simply walking away now would be catastrophic:
In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”
The soft-spoken Texas Democrat was an early opponent of the Iraq war and voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade that country. That dovish record got prominently cited last week when Speaker designate Nancy Pelosi chose Reyes as the new head of the intelligence panel.But in an interview with NEWSWEEK on Tuesday, Reyes pointedly distanced himself from many of his Democratic colleagues who have called for fixed timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Coming on the eve of tomorrow’s recommendations from the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission, Reyes’s comments were immediately cited by some Iraq war analysts as fresh evidence that the intense debate over U.S. policy may be more fluid than many have expected.
Maybe it was the firing of Rumsfeld and the ascension of Robert Gates to the position of Defense Secretary (Gates was recommended by the Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday). Maybe it’s the willingness of the Bush Administration to rethink (finally!) it’s Iraq policy. Perhaps it’s the burden of power that has settled on many Democrats who realize the genuine fix that the United States is in and rather than play the blame game they’ve decided to try and become part of the solution.
Whatever it is, it appears that many Democrats have decided to constructively engage on Iraq, a most welcome change and perhaps a turning point for both Bush and the Democrats. I say this because surprisingly, there actually seems to be a growing majority consensus that an increase of 20-30,000 troops temporarily may help the security situation in Baghdad.
Such a bump in the number of troops won’t mean much unless Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki matches the increase in security with some political moves that would lessen the influence of the anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr as well as initiate reforms that would address some of the legitimate grievances of the Sunnis relating to power sharing and security. From here on out, Maliki will have to start delivering. It’s time to find out whether this fellow is really an empty suit, blown hither and thither by the winds of Iraqi politics or whether we can work with him to stabilize the country
If he proves incapable, the alternatives are not very palatable. Some are already calling for an abandonment of Iraqi democracy for some kind of secular authoritarianism, a strong man who will be able to command the army and put down the violence by force. We’re nowhere near that point yet but perhaps the idea will light a fire under the Prime Minister and embolden his actions. From what I’ve seen of Maliki so far, I am not hopeful that either course of action will bring about the desired result.
No number of troops will be able to deal with Sadr, a political force whose power is now so great that it is probable that he will dominate Iraqi politics for years to come. This revealing article in Newsweek – informative and maddening at the same time in that we had a chance to eliminate him long ago when he was a relative unknown and failed – shows just what ISG members mean when they say that Iraq will be in the clutches of radical Shia fundamentalists for years to come.
The ISG does not recommend a troop increase which may not matter that much. This is because in another surprising development, the Baker group has been either marginalized or co-opted in many areas by both the Administration and the Iraqi government since the election. Some of their leaked ideas like a regional conference involving Iraq, Iran, Syria, the Saudis, and others is already being considered by the Iraqis. And the idea of benchmarks to be met by the Iraqi government has also been embraced by Maliki:
The benchmarks laid out for Iraqi forces are similar to the goals the Iraqi government recently embraced, the source said. Unlike Bush, though, the commission recommends consequences for not meeting them. “If they don’t do it, we ought to reduce the military, economic and political support,” the source said.At the same time, the source said, the U.S. military strategy ought to be implemented regardless of whether Iraqis meet their benchmarks. But the commission warns against turning over control of security to Iraqi forces until reforms are in place.
The Democrats have been calling for such a strategy for months. I can’t disagree with it although how reducing aid is going to speed our withdrawal is much too nuanced a concept for me to grasp. Reducing military aid will worsen the security situation which will necessitate our staying longer, won’t it? Perhaps if I started to think more like a “wise man” it would all become clearer.
One member of the panel seems to reflect the thinking of many hawks who, while not calling for immediate withdrawal, want to see something out of our government besides total surrender:
Clifford May, one of the working group’s advisers and a former Republican Party spokesman, was one of two advisers who opposed withdrawal and supported Bush’s strategy, but he said he “was willing to concede from the start that what Bush hoped for is probably not achievable. But it doesn’t mean that nothing is achievable.”May said the report includes “at least 70 recommendations,” but a timetable for troop withdrawal is not among them. “Instead, it says we have a mission that can be accomplished, and it defines that mission as the need to leave behind a government that can sustain itself,” May said.
The “all is lost” crowd – and I admit to being one of them when it appeared that Bush would use the ISG as political cover for a quick exit – would do well to consider what is realistically possible to achieve in the next two years. This is because what the Iraq Study Group makes absolutely clear is also something being echoed on Capitol Hill by both Republicans and Democrats; the clock is ticking on our involvement in Iraq. The political will to sustain our current force levels has evaporated. Both parties would dearly love to see Iraq a minor issue in the Presidential campaign of 2008. For these reasons, it appears likely that no matter what shape Iraq is in by the summer of 2008, we will probably be in the process of leaving.
How many troops we leave behind to work with the Iraqis on security and reconstruction will be unimportant. The country will be in their hands by then. Let us hope that the sacrifices we will ask of our military to achieve these limited goals will be seen by them as being worth the effort – an effort that for more than three years has never flagged, and despite the incompetence of their leaders, has brought them honor and the satisfaction that they have done the very best they can in very trying circumstances.
8:25 am
Iraq Study Group’s findings to be released online
Read full story for latest details.
8:35 am
The Canine Pundit’s predictions concerning premature withdrawal from Iraq:
1) Iraq becomes Afghanistan redux. If the U.S. withdraws before ensuring that Iraq can hold its own against its neighbors, the best that we can hope for is partition, possibly with Saudi Arabia and/or Jordan taking the lead in ensuring that it’s carried out relatively peacefully. More likely, Iran will set upon Iraq and use it in the same manner Pakistan used Afghanistan during and after its war with the Soviet Union.
2) A bullseye painted on the back of every single American. Failure to stabilize Iraq before leaving will be a clarion call for every rogue state in the world to engage the United States by terrorist proxy. The lesson will be that the United States lacks the political will required to effectively bring the fight to the enemy. I won’t venture a guess at how many Americans might die, but this nation could very well be fated to die a death by a thousand cuts should our superiors decide it’s time to cut and run.
9:15 am
The Iraq Study Group report
Here’s the ISG homepage. Rick Moran writes in advance of the report’s release today: 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…
10:41 am
Web Reconnaissance for 12/06/2006
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
10:55 am
Fight. So We Can Negotiate?
Huh? Exactly how liberals want to honor the death of those who sacrificed everything. Our brave soldiers are over there fighting to keep the “F” in VFW, while liberals think we are oil digging or fabricating new terrorists . . . so we need to talk wi…
10:56 am
Waiting For The Iraq Study Group Report
The report is set to be released at 11:00 AM EST today and will be posted here, here, here, and here due to the large number of people that are expected to be trying to access the report. I plan…
11:34 am
[...] 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 starts as early as next week, right after Iran gets done denying the Holocaust. [...]
11:40 am
[...] ISG Report By AmerPundit The Iraq Study Group Report has been released, as of 11 am. The report can be found on ISG’s official website. Rick Moran cast early predictions on what the report would say. From what I see, the report suggestions stronger diplomatic attempts, a change in the mission of the US troops, and calling Iraq’s neighbors for help. Basically, negotiate with insurgents who killed our troops, put soldiers on girl scout cookie duty, and beg Syria and Iran for help. [...]
12:12 pm
[...] Just as I thought Baker and the rest of the anti-Israel crowd to suggest. However, even more sickening is that the chickenshits on the panel are ready to once again give up to defeat, although as Rick Moran writes they aren’t willing to call it that, choosing instead to “miticate defeat”. [...]
12:35 pm
[...] Article from The New York Times: “Panel Backs Overhaul of Iraq Policy” From the right: Rightwing Nuthouse: http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/12/06/asking-men-to-die-to-mitigate-defeat/ From the left: Salon’s War Room: “Can Bush change course? It’s the question Baker won’t answer” [...]
12:57 pm
Iraq Study Group Release Report
You can download it here or read the full text at Wake Up America.
In a nutshell, the leaks were pretty accurate. Withdraw significant number of troops within 16 months, and talk to Iran and Syria. Yikes!
Allah Pundit says the verdict is…Suc…
1:10 pm
Bringing Syria and Iran into the mix, while certainly a last-ditch option, seems inevitable, and if it helps bring an end to the sectarian violence that is ripping apart Iraq at the rate of a hundred or more civilian deaths a day, then so be it. The world is a dangerous place, and like every child eventually learns, sometimes you have to make compromises, sometimes concessions, and sometimes you have to play your enemies off each other—I’m sure you know all about Realpolitik. Using Syria and Iran to stabilize the situation in Iraq so that our “adventure” (as you state it) isn’t a total fiasco, might be the most (but still an un-) palatable option.
Sadly, I think that at this point in the war we are doing little more than trying to avoid failure. What reasonable outcome at this point can justify 3,000 American deaths, 100,000 Iraqi deaths (by low estimates), and nearly a $1,000,000,000,000 dollars spent by our government? The defeat of militant islam? No way—we are no closer to ending that now than we were at the begninning of 2003. Creating a democratic ally in the middle of the middle east? Again, no way. I can hope and pray that a strong democracy takes root, but I don’t think there is any reasonable chance of that happening.
What a sinful mess we find ourselves in.
1:15 pm
I agree with everything you said. Talking with Syria and Iran however should be done in a regional context. There is “realism” and then there is “immorality.” Syria should be shunned by all civilized nations for what they are doing in Lebanon – not just encouraging Hizbullah but the active participation of Syrian security services in murdering and overthrowing the democratically elected leaders.
Bi-lateral talks with Syria should not be on the table, period.
1:39 pm
Clearly, Syria’s actions in Lebanon are beyond the pale, but I’m not sure I agree with your take on how to negotiate with Syria. Bi-lateral talks work more to our advantage. Regional talks don’t. Iran and Syria are not natural allies—particularly not while Iran is aspiring to be the only home-grown middle-east super-power. Conducting bi-lateral talks (even if they are back-door talks) with Syria innoculates us to some degree from the regional b.s. that is sure to clog up any regional talks. And with fewer sides to please, the more likely it is that consensus can be built.
As for the “realism” v. “immorality” statement, while I agree there is a difference, I don’t see it as clearly as you do. If bi-lateral talks are what it takes to get Syria to lessen up on their involvement with Lebabnon, then so be it. How is effecting change through bi-lateral talks less moral than effecting no change (read: allowing Syria to continue killing Lebanese political opposition) through regional talks or no talks at all? If Syrian usurpation of Lebanese autonomy is such a bad thing (and we agree, it is a horrible thing), shouldn’t the goal be to end it? What difference does it make if that goal is accomplished with or without Iran’s participation. Screw Iran. Furthermore, I’m okay with us looking a little immoral if it means we make some strategic gains in the middle east—we’re made safer by a safer middle east.
I just want results. I (and I’m sure you) are so sick of nothing being accomplished in the middle east. It’s a huge suck of life, money, time, and attention.
2:02 pm
Full Text of Iraq Study Group
In presenting our report to the President, Congress, and the American people, we dedicate it to the men and women— military and civilian—who have served and are serving in Iraq, and to their families back home.
2:12 pm
Iraq Study Group Report Day:
[New items on top] This is our new battle cry; “We must mitigate defeat!†(RWNH) The blogs begin to come in. In droves. Baker Report in One Line from “Man Who Came to Dinner” (1942) as sung by Jimmy Durante:...
3:41 pm
I don’t often find myself agreeing
With Rick Moran, but I must agree with most of what he writes in this post (Please read it all): I don’t know if there is a way to “victory†in Iraq. Clearly the rest of the world has already…
5:14 pm
John Kerry on The Iraq Study Group Report
The Iraq Study Group report on Iraq was released today and members of the panel met with Bush for a little photo op. The panel called for a new approach on Iraq, whether BushCo heeds the report remains to be seen.
John Kerry has been making the r…
6:46 pm
[...] Others (Obvious hot topic today): Outside The Beltway, The Moderate Voice, The Sundries Shack, Riehl World View, The Strata-Sphere, MK Ham, The Glittering Eye, Blogs of War, Security Watchtower, Jules Crittenden, Just One Minute, A Blog For All, Little Green Footballs, Don Surber, QandO, PrairiePundit, TigerHawk, The Belmont Club, Right Wing Nut House, Political Pit Bull, Confederate Yankee, [...]
7:00 pm
Pelosi Just Cannot Catch A Break
I swear if I didn’t have such a low opinion of Nancy Pelosi, I might actually feel sorry for her. It seems that no matter what she does, she makes enemies. Being in between a rock and a hard place is not a nice place to be and I almost feel bad for t…
8:30 pm
Rick,
You might want to check you NPR’s All Things Considered broadcast from this evening. I thought I heard this exact quote, but attributed to http://www.redstate.com:
“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.”
9:33 pm
That seems familiar, but I can’t figure out why.
3:32 am
If Bush follows the lost wisdom of the left
I predict one of two out comes with in the next three years or less. Israel will Nuke Iran and maybe Syria or Iran and Syria with Jihadists will Nuke Israel, then we and the rest of the world will be next!
What this World needs Right Now! Is a bunch of
Brain Washing Machines. You put these Radical Nut cases in them and reprogram them into Happy Buddist, Happy Hindus, Happy Scientist, or Happy Christians and other Religions that recognize that other religions have the right to exist. Then systematically get rid of their book where ever you find it. Their book is Anti Human and it needs to disappear.
7:10 am
If you study the history of the 1930’s it is very evident that we were headed for war with Japan and Germany. A majority of Americans at the time wanted to avoid that at all costs.
It is now 2006 and like it or not we are headed for war with Iran. We can deny it all we want but the primary goal of the government of Iran is to engage the US militarily. I would bet doughnuts every morning for the rest of my life that the decision has already been made in Tehran to go to war with the US.
Doug
7:13 am
Doug:
I think that they wish to confront the US and the west yes. But I think they believe they can do so without triggering a general war.
I think they’re right.
7:59 am
Perhaps you misunderstand me Rick. They want to confront us without triggering a war but they are prepared for war if it comes to that. What that means for us is there will be a war unless we just give in…wait never mind…with all the politicans rushing to the Sunday talk shows in order to be the first to surrender I guess they won’t have to go to war.
8:18 am
One more thing don’t you think it is ironic that today Dec 7th…the 65th anniversary of Pearl Harbor we are discussing how to surrender before we have even tried to win?
6:28 pm
excuse me but i must have been asleep. i swear i don’t remember a privy council being a legitimate organ of this republic. just like i don’t remember when Nancy Pelosi became prime minister in by way of the san mateo by-elections.
putting aside the inanities of the ISG for a moment (pretty hard i know – they are running a photo finish with the warren commission for most obvious), it seems to be symptomatic of the failure of the legislative branch govern when hard and potentially hard choices must be made. Our elected officials hide behind “blue ribbon” panels of those that feed from the government trough. The military base closing committee, 9/11 commission, and now the ISG - where is congress? C’mon new majority – the people spoke – now march into the house this january and cut funding for the war. Force the president to put together a timetable. Govern for God’s sakes and be responsible for the consequences of your actions for once.
11:48 am
How to Talk to Iran and Syria
Much poo-poo has been made about the recent ISG report that gives so-called “expert†recommendations on what to do next in Iraq. The quality of the recommendations vary widely, in my view. Undoubtedly the most controversial is the recommendation to…
8:34 pm
[...] Rick Moran at Right Wing Nuthouse has a point to make about Iran: And talking to the fanatical true believers in Iran (Ahmadinejad purged the foreign service last year, replacing experienced hands with ideological purists) about helping with security in Iraq is like inviting the wolf in for a drink and having Little Red Riding Hood give him a lap dance; the temptation to insinuate themselves even more into Iraqi affairs just might be too much to resist. [...]