OT - Iraq Study Group: Situation 'Grave and Deteriorating'

[NoMyths]

Link: Iraq Study Group: Situation 'Grave and Deteriorating'

Full Text:
CNN: Iraq Study Group: Situation 'Grave and Deteriorating'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Iraq Study Group's report given to President Bush on Wednesday says the United States needs to change its strategy to tackle the "grave and deteriorating" situation in Iraq.

Failure to halt the crisis could bring severe consequences to Iraq, the broader region and the United States, the bipartisan panel warned in a report handed to Bush at the White House.

The report calls for a "diplomatic offensive" and changing the role of U.S. troops from a combat to an advisory role.

"By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq," the report says.

"At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams and in training, equipping, advising, force protection and search and rescue."

The report warns of the consequences of inaction.

"If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe. A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized," the report says.

"We will take every proposal seriously, and we will act in a timely fashion," Bush said after receiving the report.

Bush urged Congress to take the group's proposals seriously and work with the administration to find "common ground" on Iraq policy.

"The country is tired of pure political bickering," Bush said.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said it contained 79 recommendations, but generally supported the administration's goals to leave Iraq capable of defending and governing itself.

The report says "the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve into one of supporting the Iraqi Army."

It adds: "It's clear the Iraqi government will need U.S. assistance for some time to come, especially in carrying out new security responsibilities. Yet the U.S. must not make open-ended commitments to keep large numbers of troops deployed in Iraq."

The report also prods the administration to launch a new diplomatic initiative to solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

It contends the United States "cannot achieve its goals in the Mideast" unless it embarks on a "renewed and sustained commitment to a comprehensive peace plan on all fronts."

As part of this initiative, the panel calls for direct talks between the United States and Iran, as well as Syria, a move the Bush administration has repeatedly resisted.

Although the president has said his goal is to help form an Iraqi government that can sustain and defend itself, the study group contends that cannot be achieved without serious help from other nations in the Mideast.

"Every country has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq's neighbors," the report says.

"Iraq's neighbors and key states in and outside the region should form a support group" to help Iraq achieve long-term security and political reconciliation -- "neither of which it can sustain on its own," the report says, referring to the shaky government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

The study group is co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton and urges bipartisan cooperation to enable success.

"What we recommend demands a tremendous amount of political will and cooperation between the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government," the report says. "Success depends on unity of the American people at a time of political polarization."

The report concludes: "Foreign policy is doomed to failure -- as is any action in Iraq -- if not supported by broad, sustained consensus."

[Warhammer]

First, Iran and Syria have no need for a stable Iraq, or one that is not dominated by them.

Second, I love how I get conflicting info from the news and friends that have either served over there or have parts of their unit or former unit over there. That said, most of the info I have from friends lately deals mainly with the Kurdish area of Iraq which is pretty tame apparently.

[JPhillips]

Warhammer: You're wrong about Syria and Iran. Both have no desire for the flood of refugees that would be likely if the US pulled out and both have no desire for a wider Sunni/Shia conflict that almost certainly will happen without a change in the status quo. Saudi Arabia has already made some threats about stepping in if the Sunnis keep getting killed.

You also can't compare the Kurdish areas of Iraq to the other parts. Kurdish Iraq is largely peaceful, but the rest of the country is on the verge of collapse. Everyone is saying this from the new SecDef to Iraq's own government.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Situation 'Grave and Deteriorating'

Sounds like they're describing the state of affairs in the U.S.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Sounds like they're describing the state of affairs in the U.S.

Luckily Bush only has a couple of years left.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Warhammer: You're wrong about Syria and Iran. Both have no desire for the flood of refugees that would be likely if the US pulled out and both have no desire for a wider Sunni/Shia conflict that almost certainly will happen without a change in the status quo. Saudi Arabia has already made some threats about stepping in if the Sunnis keep getting killed.

I'm not so sure that they wouldn't welcome such a development. What does Iran in particular have to gain from a strong, stable Iraq? An Iraq that is stable but dependent upon Iran I can understand. Syria I could see where they wouldn't want a flood of refugees, but would they really mind all that much?

Saudi has the most to lose from an unstable Iraq since they are already having problems maintaining order there anyway.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You also can't compare the Kurdish areas of Iraq to the other parts. Kurdish Iraq is largely peaceful, but the rest of the country is on the verge of collapse. Everyone is saying this from the new SecDef to Iraq's own government.

Which is why I mentioned that. I haven't heard anything from anyone else about the Kurdish areas, certainly not the press. My friend (the one here in TN that has part of his unit over in Iraq) claims that outside of Bahgdad it isn't nearly as bad as it seems, provided they have plenty of troops in an area. The problem is they don't have enough groundpounders in there.

[JPhillips]

Iran benefits most from a Shia dominated Iraq that is stable. They have expanded Shia influence in the Middle East and to some degree an ally on their Western border. They would in effect get all the benefits from winning a war against Iraq without having to do much. Its not a great outcome for us, but its certainly a win for Iran.

Syria has its own Sunni/Shia split and doesn't need a wider war that will consume them. They don't have any close friends in the region and wouldn't fair well in a regional conflict. They are resource poor and have nothing to gain from a hot war either on their border or inside their border.

Unfortunately we've so fucked this up that anything we do will benefit Iran. The idea now is to reassess and figure out how to deal with the much bigger threat of Iranian dominance in the Middle East. This is what you get when you don't plan for the post-war period and muddle about waiting for a magic fairy to make things better.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Iran benefits most from a Shia dominated Iraq that is stable. They have expanded Shia influence in the Middle East and to some degree an ally on their Western border. They would in effect get all the benefits from winning a war against Iraq without having to do much. Its not a great outcome for us, but its certainly a win for Iran.

Syria has its own Sunni/Shia split and doesn't need a wider war that will consume them. They don't have any close friends in the region and wouldn't fair well in a regional conflict. They are resource poor and have nothing to gain from a hot war either on their border or inside their border.

Unfortunately we've so fucked this up that anything we do will benefit Iran. The idea now is to reassess and figure out how to deal with the much bigger threat of Iranian dominance in the Middle East. This is what you get when you don't plan for the post-war period and muddle about waiting for a magic fairy to make things better.

Well said. I would also extend the final thought further -- it wasn't merely a lack of effective post-war planning that has led to this point, but the kind of thinking coming from the administration that resulted in the current situation. Despite years worth of outcry to look for other solutions, the administration (and in extension the media voices and, yes, even some of our own forum folks) have continually demonized and dismissed any such criticisms and ideas. Yet we still have little evidence that these kinds of failed approaches will change much, if at all, without those one-time minority voices continuing to take power away from those who have misused it.

[st.cronin]

Pat Buchanan, who I usually think is a nitwit, had a neat point about Iraq - that if the US Army, the finest the world has ever seen, can't maintain order in Iraq, where does this fantasy come from that we can somehow train up the Iraqi Army and expect them to do anything at all?

[JPhillips]

But that's not really a good comparison. Its a much different thing to have native forces. That doesn't mean they'll be successful, but Buchanan is yet again full of crap.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Also, 500,000 Iraqi troops would be much different than 145,000 U.S. troops. Thus, if (a big if) you train them well and they are motivated, they could do something the U.S. troops could not -- be everywhere.

[Anthony]

i don't believe in the supremity and dominance of the US military. we have fancy toys, that's all. we haven't won a major war in quite a few decades. i'm calling the Persian Gulf War a tie since we, in hindsight, didn't accomplish much (the Hussein regime was still allowed to remain in power). we can't affect much, and it frustrates the powers that be that we have no magic wand to wave over the world anymore.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i don't believe in the supremity and dominance of the US military.

I disagree with this sentiment. Our military is still the most powerful in the world (and second place, whomever that might be, is way behind), but in this situation, the military was asked to do something it was never designed to do. The military did its job: get rid of Hussein. Asking it to rebuild a nation that it had just destroyed, do police work, deal with terrorists and partisan attacks, and setup a new government is beyond the scope of how our military is designed. I blame the political leaders (and the military leaders who didn't speak up sooner) for this.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

I disagree with this sentiment. Our military is still the most powerful in the world (and second place, whomever that might be, is way behind), but in this situation, the military was asked to do something it was never designed to do. The military did its job: get rid of Hussein. Asking it to rebuild a nation that it had just destroyed, do police work, deal with terrorists and partisan attacks, and setup a new government is beyond the scope of how our military is designed.

I think HA has a reasonable point in that the US military has made the job it is designed to do irrelevant and has failed to adjust and make itself useful. You're correct that no one can challenge the US in conventional warfare, at this point no one would even try to. Which means that all of our fighting, now and in the future, is likely to be non-conventional (terrorism, insurgency and the like). Something that, as you note, the US military is completely unprepared to deal with. But it ought to be. People in leadership positions really frakked up not seeing this coming...

[NoMyths]

The President weighs in on the report:

""Some reports are issued and just gather dust. And truth of the matter is, a lot of reports in Washington are never read by anybody. To show you how important this one is, I read it."

-- President Bush, at a press conference, on the Iraq Study Group report.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

The President weighs in on the report:

""Some reports are issued and just gather dust. And truth of the matter is, a lot of reports in Washington are never read by anybody. To show you how important this one is, I read it."

-- President Bush, at a press conference, on the Iraq Study Group report.

Here it is with more context, I hope you don't mind me unbanning this.

President Bush says a new approach is needed in Iraq.

His comments -- a response to the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and its downbeat assessment of the war -- came in a news conference Thursday attended by a strong ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The two leaders worked together in making the case for war and in defending it over the past four years. Both still insist that victory is possible.

The president has held more joint appearances with Blair than with any other foreign leader, and Thursday produced an Oval Office meeting, followed by the news conference. In opening statements, they seemed to be working from the same script, as the president praised Blair's "clear view" and Blair praised the president's "clarity of vision."

Both said they still believe success will come in Iraq.

But the first question -- from the Associated Press -- pointed to Wednesday's report by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, which suggests that the Bush-Blair approach in Iraq is failing. In response, the president declined to look back.

"The thing I liked about the Baker-Hamilton report is it discussed the way forward in Iraq," he said. "And I believe we need a new approach."

Blair was a bit more candid:

"I think the analysis of the situation is not really in dispute," he said. "The question is, how do we find the right way forward?"

There were no specifics about what that way forward will be. The president did say that a speech is being planned, but that won't come until he's received a trio of internal reports he's requested from the Pentagon, the State Department and the National Security Council.

The president was asked whether the so-called Baker-Hamilton report shouldn't carry more weight than the others, given that it alone comes from a bipartisan commission, and given that Baker is a longtime Bush family friend and adviser. The president called it an interesting question.

"Some reports are issued and just gather dust," he said. "And truth of the matter is, a lot of reports in Washington are never read by anybody. To show you how important this one is, I read it, and our guest read it. The prime minister read a report prepared by a commission. And this is important."

But he did not say which of its recommendations he may adopt.

A British reporter quoted the Iraq Study Group report in describing the situation in Iraq as "grave and deteriorating." He noted that the president's language in his opening statement Thursday was weaker, calling the violence "unsettling."

The reporter wondered whether the president is in denial about how bad things are.

"It's bad in Iraq," the president shot back. And after a moment's pause, he had more to say, adding:

"Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die. I understand there's sectarian violence. I also understand that we're hunting down al-Qaida on a regular basis and we're bringing them to justice. I understand how hard our troops are working. I know how brave the men and women who wear the uniform are, and therefore, they'll have the full support of this government. I understand what long deployments mean to wives and husbands, and mothers and fathers, particularly as we come into a holiday season. I understand."

It was a demonstration that the president remains combative, even as he sifts through the accumulating critiques of his policy for ideas he can use.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

The President weighs in on the report:

""Some reports are issued and just gather dust. And truth of the matter is, a lot of reports in Washington are never read by anybody. To show you how important this one is, I read it."

-- President Bush, at a press conference, on the Iraq Study Group report.

I guess you find this surprising then. It really is no surprise. I can't tell you how many times any big entity (government, corporation, etc.) has employees or outside people come in and prepare reports and either don't read them or disregard what they read completely.