Iraq study group - 'Iraq policy not working'

exigent · #1 (**permalink**) 12-06-2006, 09:52 AM

Quote:

WASHINGTON - President Bush’s policy in Iraq “is not working,” a high-level commission said bluntly on Wednesday, prodding the administration to embrace diplomacy to stabilize the country and allow withdrawal of most U.S. combat troops by early 2008.

After four years of war and the deaths of more than 2,900 U.S. troops, the situation is “grave and deteriorating,” and the United States’ ability “to influence events within Iraq is diminishing,” the commission warned in an unsparing report.

Among some of the changes the commission called for:
* Embed more U.S. forces with Iraqi units.
* Renew the push to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict through a “diplomatic offensive.”
* Involve Syria and Iran in negotiations over Iraq’s future.

“There is no magic bullet,” former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, co-chairman of the group, said later at a news conference that marked the formal release of the results of the commission’s eight-month labors.

"We do not recommend a stay the course solution. In our opinion that approach is no longer viable," Baker, a Republican, said. Baker added that the time had come for "a new way forward, a new approach" in Iraq.

“Many Americans are understandably dissatisfied,” former Rep. Lee Hamilton Hamilton, the other co-chairman, said.

"The current approach is not working and the ability of the United States to influence events is diminishing. ... No course of action in Iraq (is) guaranteed to stop a slide toward chaos. Yet, in our view, not all options have been exhausted," Hamilton, a Democrat, said.

Hamilton also said the high-level panel concluded the U.S. costs "could well rise over $1 trillion."

The commission report recommended the United States reduce “political, military or economic support” for Iraq if the government in Baghdad cannot make substantial progress toward providing for its own security.

Earlier, Bush received the report in at the White House with commission members. He pledged to treat each proposal seriously and act in a “timely fashion.” He was flanked by Baker and Hamilton in a remarkable scene — a president praising the work of a group that had just concluded his policy had led to chaos.

“There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved,” the commission said.

The report, portions of which were obtained by NBC News, The Associated Press and other news outlets ahead of its official release, painted a grim picture of Iraq nearly four years after U.S. forces toppled Saddam Hussein. It urged Bush to embrace steps he has thus far rejected, including a call to involve Syria and Iran in negotiations over Iraq’s future.

“Our most important recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly,” the report said.

It warned that if the situation continues to deteriorate, there is a risk of a “slide toward chaos (that) could trigger the collapse of Iraq’s government and a humanitarian catastrophe.”

“Neighboring countries could intervene. ... The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized,” commissioners said.

With diplomacy under way, the report said, the United States should increase the number of combat and other troops that are embedded with and supporting Iraqi Army units.

“As these actions proceed, U.S. combat forces could begin to move out of Iraq. ... 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.”

Baker, Hamilton and the other members of the commission traveled to the Capitol from the White House to present their findings to senior lawmakers. The report makes 79 separate recommendations on Iraq policy, said one official familiar with the work.

The recommendations came at a pivotal time, with Bush under domestic pressure to change course and with the new, Democratic-controlled Congress certain to cast a skeptical look at administration policy.

"If the president is serious about the need for change in Iraq, he will find Democrats ready to work with him in a bipartisan fashion to find a way to end the war as quickly as possible," said Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who is in line to become speaker when the new Congress convenes in January.

Additionally, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the architect of the administration’s war policy, has resigned. His replacement, Robert Gates, is on track for Senate confirmation this week after a remarkable assessment of his own — that the United States is not winning the war.
Bush has rejected establishing timetables for withdrawing the 140,000 U.S. troops and has said he isn’t looking for “some kind of graceful exit out of Iraq.”

There was no letup in the killing in Iraq, where a mortar attack killed at least eight people and wounded dozens in a secondhand goods market. Police said the shelling was followed closely by a suicide bombing in the Sadr City Shiite district of the capital.

It was the type of violence that has led many to declare that Iraq is in the throes of a civil war — an assessment that Bush has refused to accept.

NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski said the military had not yet made the latest casualty figures public, but that sources told him 10 more U.S. troops had been killed in Iraq Wednesday.

The full report will be available at bookstores this week.
By whatever name, Baker, Hamilton and the other eight members of the commission said the status quo was unacceptable.

“The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating,” they warned.

“Violence is increasing in scope and lethality. It is fed by a Sunni Arab insurgency, Shiite militias, death squads, al-Qaida and widespread criminality. Sectarian conflict is the principal challenge to stability.”

Bush said the report “gives a very tough assessment of the situation in Iraq. It is a report that brings some really very interesting proposals, and we will take every proposal seriously and we will act in a timely fashion.”

He also urged members of Congress to give serious consideration to the recommendations.

“While they won’t agree with every proposal, and we probably won’t agree with every proposal, it nevertheless is an opportunity to come together and to work together on this important issue,” he said.

The commission’s recommendation to have U.S. forces embedded with Iraqi units reflects an approach the military already has been emphasizing in recent months. But administration officials say Iraqis are not yet ready to go it alone against the insurgency.

The commission also recommended a renewed push to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, saying the United States cannot otherwise achieve its goals in the Middle East.

U.S. allies in the region, including the powerful Sunni leadership in Saudi Arabia, say the Arab-Israeli conflict underlies other Middle East problems and that rancor from the impasse makes other issues harder to solve.

The commission recommended that a “diplomatic offensive” be aimed at building an international consensus for stability in Iraq, and that it include every country in the region.

The United States accuses Syria and Iran of bankrolling terrorism and stirring up trouble in the region. The United States has had no diplomatic ties to Iran for nearly three decades, and pulled its ambassador from Syria last year.

Still, the commission said, “Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively.”

Ahead of the report’s release, the White House said it would consider talking to Iran and Syria if the commission recommended it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16068589/

Iraq Study group report

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...oup_report.pdf

Have fun sugarcoating that, conservatives.

Beagle66 · #2 (**permalink**) 12-06-2006, 11:07 AM

It's a significant milestone in the Iraqi war and yet conservatives don't want to comment on its message: Stay the course is not working.

It absolutely says that Bush has failed miserably and completely in waging this Iraqi war. And Bush had to stand there like a idiot and accept the pronounciation that liably will label his presidency as one horrific failure.

It probably didn't help that 10 soldiers were killed today bringing the total killed in six days of December to 27. Pretty bloody awful Christmas for our soldiers.

exigent · #3 (**permalink**) 12-06-2006, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beagle66";p=&quot

It's a significant milestone in the Iraqi war and yet conservatives don't want to comment on its message: Stay the course is not working.

It absolutely says that Bush has failed miserably and completely in waging this Iraqi war. And Bush had to stand there like a idiot and accept the pronounciation that liably will label his presidency as one horrific failure.

It probably didn't help that 10 soldiers were killed today bringing the total killed in six days of December to 27. Pretty bloody awful Christmas for our soldiers.

At least I will give credit to Bush for appearing to be eager to do what it takes to solve the problem (notice I didnt say 'win the war'). His stubbornness got us only further in trouble, hopefully he will follow through and try to do the right thing.

+1 for Bush, lets see where he goes from here. Democrats are very eager to work with him on this.

akc814ilv · #4 (**permalink**) 12-06-2006, 11:47 AM

I'm not talking about any of you who have posted so far. But why is it that so many liberals almost seem to take joy and pleasure from the fact that things aren't going well there??

I know its always good to be able to say "i told you so" I mean heck I was against the war even while I was over there fighting it. I NEVER supported this war in Iraq. HOWEVER the difference is that I very much want us to succeed.

People might ask...What does "victory" mean?? Well it means getting the country up and running to the point where they can take care of themselves.

I dont like this war, I dont like that our intelligence messed up and convinced the President to throw the WMD issue out there. I dont like how our leadership has been stubborn and naive in their thinking about strategy over there. But I still have at all time been rooting for us to kick butt over there, win with minimal troop losses (for a war they ARE still minimal) and to build a peaceful and prosperoous Iraq, which in turn could also be another ally of ours in that region.

It doesnt look like some of those things are going to happen. But why such glee over it?? Yeah so people dont like Bush...hell I dont like Bush. However if a great victory over there meant giving Bush props, then I would rather have gone that route and sung the praises of Bush, as opposed to watching things falling apart over there.

I guess some people want to be proven right, no matter what the cost to their country.

exigent · #5 (**permalink**) 12-06-2006, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by akc814ilv";p=&quot

I'm not talking about any of you who have posted so far. But why is it that so many liberals almost seem to take joy and pleasure from the fact that things aren't going well there??

I know its always good to be able to say "i told you so" I mean heck I was against the war even while I was over there fighting it. I NEVER supported this war in Iraq. HOWEVER the difference is that I very much want us to succeed.

People might ask...What does "victory" mean?? Well it means getting the country up and running to the point where they can take care of themselves.

I dont like this war, I dont like that our intelligence messed up and convinced the President to throw the WMD issue out there. I dont like how our leadership has been stubborn and naive in their thinking about strategy over there. But I still have at all time been rooting for us to kick butt over there, win with minimal troop losses (for a war they ARE still minimal) and to build a peaceful and prosperoous Iraq, which in turn could also be another ally of ours in that region.

It doesnt look like some of those things are going to happen. But why such glee over it?? Yeah so people dont like Bush...hell I dont like Bush. However if a great victory over there meant giving Bush props, then I would rather have gone that route and sung the praises of Bush, as opposed to watching things falling apart over there.

I guess some people want to be proven right, no matter what the cost to their country.

Read my post right before yours where I try to give Bush credit.

One can not fix a problem until you acknowledge that a problem exists. What the report recommended will help us avoid turning Iraq into another Vietnam.

I didnt post the thread as an I told you so, but the story is pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) relevant to today's goings on.

gmb92 · #6 (**permalink**) 12-06-2006, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by akc814ilv";p=&quot

I'm not talking about any of you who have posted so far. But why is it that so many liberals almost seem to take joy and pleasure from the fact that things aren't going well there??

I know its always good to be able to say "i told you so" I mean heck I was against the war even while I was over there fighting it. I NEVER supported this war in Iraq. HOWEVER the difference is that I very much want us to succeed.

People might ask...What does "victory" mean?? Well it means getting the country up and running to the point where they can take care of themselves.

I dont like this war, I dont like that our intelligence messed up and convinced the President to throw the WMD issue out there. I dont like how our leadership has been stubborn and naive in their thinking about strategy over there. But I still have at all time been rooting for us to kick butt over there, win with minimal troop losses (for a war they ARE still minimal) and to build a peaceful and prosperoous Iraq, which in turn could also be another ally of ours in that region.

It doesnt look like some of those things are going to happen. But why such glee over it?? Yeah so people dont like Bush...hell I dont like Bush. However if a great victory over there meant giving Bush props, then I would rather have gone that route and sung the praises of Bush, as opposed to watching things falling apart over there.

I guess some people want to be proven right, no matter what the cost to their country.

I've heard this attempt to demonize the left and center before. O'Reilly does it regularly. When pressed further, he states that the "far left" (i.e. anyone to the left of Lieberman by his definition) has a "vested interest" in things going poorly in Iraq and further jumps to the conclusion that they are trying to make us fail because they benefit politically from it. This amost belongs on the conspiracy theory forum. Applying this argument to the other side allows us to see the hypocrisy and foolishness of it. The far right and Bush certainly had a vested interest in 9/11 occurring. There is no doubt that they profoundly benefited politically from the event. Does this mean that they wanted 9/11 to occur? Does this mean that they deliberately ignored the terrorist threat prior to 9/11, or was it just negligence as most of us accept?

Yes, the fact remains that Democrats will and have benefited from the terrible mistakes Bush and his party have made in the run-up to the war and the handling of it. Democrats benefited from Watergate too. This is by default, not due to any glee, desire or alleged actions taken to ensure failure.

When someone emotionally reports on violence, for instance, I think you are misinterpreting this as "joy and glee". The purpose of reporting reality is primarily to allow the people of our country to become informed and to get our government to make pragmatic decisions based on reality. I do express some contentment in knowing that Americans are slowly but surely becoming more educated and in touch with reality regarding Iraq. This gives our country and the world hope for the future.

barney-fife · #7 (**permalink**) 12-06-2006, 12:29 PM

I have a few questions. The report recommends renewing the push in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict through a “diplomatic offensive.” while involving Syria and Iran in negotiations over Iraq’s future.

Okay, how is diplomacy possible when the beginning point of both Syria and Iran is the total death and destruction of Israel? Let's say Israel offers up the West Bank. Syria's response would only be, "Thank you very much. Now I will kill you." Okay, take the whole nation of Israel. All of Israel will immigrate to non-Mid-East nations. Again, the only response would be, "Thank you very much. Now I will kill you."

Secondly, what makes you think Israel is somehow responsible for ending terrorism in Iraq and/or the Middle East? Terrorists have attacked places all over the world, in nations both friend and foe alike to Israel. There simply is no connection to terrorism and Israel. For example, what does Israel have to do with terrorist attacks in Spain? Or Russia? Or the Far East? Or Russia? Nothing.

Beagle66 · #8 (**permalink**) 12-06-2006, 12:55 PM

Was George W. Bush when he made the remarkably silly appearance on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln before the banner reading "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED".

And George W. Bush was not misled by faulty intelligence -- he cherry-picked through the intelligence presenting to Congress and the American people only those facts which supported a war that he and his neocon buddies were planning since at least 1999. He had all the intelligence he needed to know that war with Iraq was unneccessary. But once again, George W. Bush was feeling glee over the fact that he hoodwinked everyone who opposed this war and Bush got his little war.

There's not a liberal that feels any glee whatsoever over nearly 3000 dead soldiers or the tens of thousand injured or the ones still stuck in that quagmire or the civil war that Bush's STUPID actions has precipitated. We want the soldiers home and we want it as soon as possible. If this report helps to bring that about, then yes, we'll feel glee about that but only when our troops actually come home.

And if this report doesn't do anything else but that, that'll be great. But it would also be nice to see Bush held accountable for his incompetence.

gmb92 · #9 (**permalink**) 12-06-2006, 01:00 PM

A firm grasp of reality is essential to making sound decisions:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061206/...olence_figures

WASHINGTON - U.S. military and intelligence officials have systematically underreported the violence in Iraq in order to suit the Bush administration's policy goals, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group said.

In its report on ways to improve the U.S. approach to stabilizing Iraq, the group recommended Wednesday that the director of national intelligence and the secretary of defense make changes in the collection of data about violence to provide a more accurate picture.

The panel pointed to one day last July when U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence. "Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence," it said.

akc814ilv · #10 (**permalink**) 12-06-2006, 01:27 PM

GMB....im not quoting Republican propaganda. Like I said in the post I was against the war and I dont like Bush AT ALL. Im also NOT a Republican.

However Beagle I have heard numerous liberals talk about how they are happy that we arent doing well over there. They have flat out told me that its a good thing because it gives us less power in the world, and that they are enjoying it because it makes Bush look bad.

This is me quoting people that I have had conversations with at work, or with my friends (I hang with some libs, some conservatives) I have heard these things numerous times.

I HONESTLY believe that certain extreme far leftists are actually happy that we are losing just so that they can have another opportunity to bash on Bush. Its almost as if they are desperate for the friggin 60's again or something....I dont know.

Anyways though im not implicating all Democrats. I get along with moderate Democrats just fine (and no when I say moderate I dont JUST mean Liebermann, although I do like him as well) Most moderate Democrats oppose the war, they oppose the way it has been handled and want to get us out of there, however they also realize that we need to find the best way to do that. They hold no ill will towards our troops.

WIth that said I think the extreme far left hates our military, they hate anything American. Hate Religion with a passion, hate capitalism, and if they could would turn us into a socialist, extrememly radical european nation.

To be fair the Far Right is just as wacky. If they had their way they would Nuke Iraq into a big hole in the ground and then say "see mission accomplished"

Both extremes are out of touch with reality.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode