Monster birth born out of disaster
Let’s face it. Far from being a unified plan for turning around the disaster of Iraq, the Iraq Study Group Report is a desperate grab-bag of possible solutions, any of which may or may not be effective.
For example, under Recommendation 62 we read:
Protective measures could include a program to improve pipeline security by paying local tribes solely on the basis of throughput (rather than fixed amounts).
This is an interesting short-term part-solution to a specific problem (security of oil supplies), and one that laudably addresses the realities on the ground largely neglected by the war ‘planners’ — in this instance, of the tribal divisions in Iraq.
In the longer term, however, this measure would do nothing to foster sorely needed national unity. Rather, it aims to exploit those divisions, effectively encouraging and rewarding them.
The most immediate problem for the US, of course, is its military involvement in the mire of Iraqi sectarian warfare: In short, the problem of how to get the hell out with its honour, credibility and strategic interests intact.
Greg Palast has taken a dim view of the ISG’s recommendations. Just on one angle:
Keeping 140,000 troops in Iraq is a disaster getting more disastrous. The Baker Boys’ idea: cut the disaster in half — leave 70,000 troops there.
And so on.
If the US and her allies were hoping for a magic fix out of the ISG Report, the reality is that it presents no such thing. President Bush, perhaps for his own political and pragmatic reasons, has distanced his administration from the Report’s ‘findings’.
The only hope may be for some smart operator in the administration to cherry pick the best of the Recommendations, and apply them judiciously to minimise the damage to US interests and prestige. Other than that, a pull-out — precipitate or not — could well be unavoidable.
posted by Jacob A. Stam at 12/11/2006 03:56:00 PM
7 Comments:
I agree with you Jacob; this study is a total dog's breakfast. If I were Bush I'd distance myself from it too. I don't think he has that luxury.
I think what both Republicans and Democrats were hoping for was that the ISG report would give them a politically safe "out." A way of solving the problem without domestic or international political pain, and particularly not to have to deal with it during the 2008 election campaign. It is indeed a grab-bag, but it won't get them out of facing up to the pain.
And that pain will be felt all the way to 2008 Will.
Overweening arrogance will often occasion a precipitate fall and I'm afraid that the Rummy departure only lowers the Republicans some five thousand feet from their thirty-five.
Long drop minus a 'chute.
There is no easy way out mate: the easy way was in. All signposted and mapped out by arrogant arse holes many of whom are denying that this is what they wanted and it's anyone's fault other than their own. Mostly the (now not really) Republican administration's.
Well, that's true. Crassus said the same thing after his legions were slaughtered in Mesopotamia and the Parthian commander was taking the swing that removed his head.
The Democrats shouldn't get off easy either. Many of them had the opportunity to say "this is a stupid idea" back in 2002/2003, and/or offer constructive alternatives. Most of them didn't do it. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden and leading Democrats, waffled, fence-straddled, or found a way to vote for the disaster and still maintain deniability. At least Joe Lieberman had the balls to say unequivocally he was for the Iraq plan. And he's maintained that position; so at least he's not trying to weasel out.
No mate, you're right there too. Problem is, they likely will. See, they weren't in power; they didn't have a bunch of hoons haring off to the ME like so many Nike beanied WRX nickers on their way to the next ram raid.
Precisely why the "former next president of the US" would be a good candidate.
Will has rightly raised the question of the Dem's culpability for their part in supporting the invasion.
Thing is that the whole enterprise had almost universally bipartisan support. The whole thing may to some extent have been played on respective party political agendas (though, I understand, to a lesser degree than would happen in Oz) but the members of Congress are also answerable to their electors.
Seems the whole of the US, if not the entire Western world, was 'captured' (or whatever) by the wave of hype that we now know was largely illusory (if not, dare I say, manufactured).
I dunno. Just trying to pull apart what really happened these past 5 years or so.
The Dems went along (bar two I think) in exactly the same way that Beazley Labor went along with "border protection" and will likely - under Rudd - go along with this current "values test" bloody crap: so as not to be "wedged". Far from excusing it, that makes it worse: gutless.
Perhaps we should call it the "Oz val youse test"
Wasn't necessarily trying to excuse.
Another aspect is that Congressmen have better access and opportunities to acquire crucial info. Question is did they make the effort? Were any of their efforts stymied by the exec or associated organs?
Or perhaps by and large they self-censored? Which would be beyond mere gutlessness. That's abrogation of duty of the most negligent order, in the circumstances.
Post a Comment
<< Home