Will President Bush-Congress Listen to Iraq Study Group?
What has been particularly frustrating about the debate in Washington over Iraq is that everyone seems to be fighting one another and forgetting the fundamental mission of the war, writes Leon E. Panetta in an Op-Ed piece today in the New York Times.
He was a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and a member of the Iraq Study Group.
“Whether one is for or against the war, the key to stability is to have an Iraq that, in the words of the president himself, can ‘govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.’
“Achieving that goal is largely dependent on the political reforms that Iraqi leaders have promised but failed to put in place in their country.
“As a member of the Iraq Study Group, I found that every military commander we talked to felt that the absence of national reconciliation was the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq.
“As one American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress on reforms, ‘all the troops in the world will not provide security.’
“Instead of dividing over the strategy on the war, the president and the Congress should make very clear to the Iraqis that there is no open-ended commitment to our involvement.
“As the Iraq Study Group recommended, Iraqi leaders must pay a price if they continue to fail to make good on key reforms that they have promised the Iraqi people…”
To read more please click here…
I wonder why with such sane advice coming from many quarters in the USA and elsewhere in the world, the people in power are just refusing to listen.
Soon the public could be out on the streets questioning the mental, physical, emotional state of the decision-makers…!!!
30 Responses to “Will President Bush-Congress Listen to Iraq Study Group?”
Did you read the Iraq Study Group Report?
No. Why?
I am just responding to the NYT story…that’s it!
I will now read the Iraq Study Group report…since you have mentioned it.
I wish to be educated and I am going through this…..
I think the president ought to tell the Iraq study group what they can do with their appeasement report.
Laura, I have some very very bad news for you:
Iran is releasing the 15 UK Sailors.
Looks like Bush won’t be able to use the sailors as an excuse to launch a war. Too bad, since I know you were really excited about this, and hoped those kids would be held hostage for a long time or even (better still, from your point of view) publically executed.
The specific reasons that I asked the question is that the ISG Report specifically rejected timetables and deadlines and supported a U. S. military presence in Iraq of indefinite length.
Ok. Have I got it right?(I am a dim wit you know)…These views are not of ISG’s but personal outpourings of Leon E. Panetta? Whatever…even if these are his views…why not discuss these???
supported a U. S. military presence in Iraq of indefinite length.
But not at full-force right? I thought it said that we should wind it down in about 18 months- though without specific deadlines. It also recommended negotiations with Iran and Syria, which we are not pursuing.
Here’s a pretty fair synopsis.
The implications of the rhetorical question in your title, Swaraaj Chauhan, are that neither the Administration nor the Congress is listening and that they should. Since the report outright rejects withdrawal from Iraq before the country is stabilized more than it is now (“precipitate withdrawal” i.e. on the clock rather than dependent on achieving objectives) and the Biden plan, it’s quite clear that the Congressional leadership has rejected the ISG report while the Administration is, essentially, following the recommendations.
I think it’s quite correct to criticize the Administration for refusing to negotiate directly either with the Iranians or Syrians. IMO that’s distasteful but necessary. The Administration should be negotiating directly with them.
However, I think that Mr. Panetta is detaching himself somewhat from the Report’s recommendations to follow his co-partisans. If the Congress’s Democratic leadership, following the lead of the opinion polls of the American people, are really sincere about wanting to remove our military from Iraq regardless of consequences, I think they really owe it to use to explain how they’ll ensure American interests in the region when the inevitable happens.
Oh God! It it is all about the American interests all the time!!! What about peace and tranquility in the USA and world!!!
I am not sure what “American interest means”.
Is it the interest of the powerful business or of the ordinary people?
It means access to ME oil, Swaraaj. The invasion of Iraq was not because of 9/11- that was just the excuse used to get the US public and our allies on board. If you look at the Project for the New American Century , a ’90′s neocon think tank, which called for regime change to maintain an American presence in the region, and wanted to establish a pro-western nation that would be more friendly to us and the Israelis, that tells you all you need to know. That’s why the dots never really connected between Sadaam and al queda.
Both. The U. S. is a large country with lots of interests. Oil is certainly one of them. So are peace and security in the Middle East and the rest of the world. Israel is another interest both for domestic political reasons and the reality that, like it or not, the Israelis are our most reliable ally in the region as well as being a great asset for gathering intelligence.
I understand the oil story.
But one must know how to go about getting oil.
It is a seduction game…quite like when you seduce a woman (or a man).
You don’t hit the man (or a woman) on the head when you can’t seduce them!!!
I think the romance is going out of the lives of…
If the romance goes out what comes in…??? Threats…bullying…violence???
Elementary my dear…Watson…(oops Dave Schuler)!!!
I’m not saying that I think it was a brilliant strategy, Swaraaj- but I think it was undertaken because of rising opposition in the ME to the US and the influence that we already had on the region. I think Jimmy Carter’s strategy of conservation and investment of alternative fuels combined with higher fuel efficiency for our cars was the way to go and still is. But that’s the liberal point of view, not the neocon.
The US interest should be to significantly reduce our consumption of oil. This waste has been a problem since the early 70′s and we are not doing enough. Neocon ideas and pre-emptive wars to install Date Republics won’t solve our consumption problems.
The Report primary principle “Talk to Your Enemies” is profoundly wrong in this case. Just remember European countries and Britain talk to Hitler. We currently have deal with new wave of fascism. The Report hidden principle “Sell Your Friend to Enemiesâ€? is also wrong.
Reagan talked to the Evil Empire in the ’80′s and was astounded how much he learned about the Soviets. That knowlege enabled him to negotiate a defeat of the empire. Was Reagan an appeaser like Chamberlain?? This is just a Republican talking point that has no basis in the real world. Almost every past state dept official has recommended that we talk to Syria and Iran- even conservative Jim Baker. To avoid it is to invite escalation of violence and regional war, which we are currently not prepared to deal with.
Soviet Union never threat using nuclear arsenal to exterminate any country. I lived there fore over 40 years. Only ignorant person can compare the Soviet Union to Iran. Regarding Reagan, do not forget that he betrayed memory of the marines killed by Hezbullah. He was weak on islamofascism.
Reagan was a cold warrior who didn’t really understand islamic fundamentalism, and actually contributed to it by secretly arming Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. He also armed the muhadejeen in Afghanistan. He thought that the Soviets, who were in the midst of a huge military build-up might very well attack the US and cause Armegeddon, which is why he came up with SDI, and sought to beat the Soviets in the arms race.
I think the nuclear threat from Iran, while serious is not as threatening as a well-armed USSR was, because the Iranians cannot afford a build-up like Russia had, and because of the financial sanctions that are being applied to them. Iran has not threatened to attack us with nukes either.
Oh, and I’d appreciate it if you didn’t call me ignorant- there is a comment policy here.
I’m libertarian at heart, with a strong bent to isolationism, so I’ll agree with you without converting to your political religion.
It’s not too hard to find discussions of Iraq being the “swing state” in global oil flows and the destabilizing leverage that Hussein portended as far back as the mid-90′s. So, the Iraq “regime change” likely did have its oil flow motivations. However, it is also disengenuous for today’s liberals to totally ignore what he did to the Kurds and the Shiites. His overthrow was not a loss to humanity. And I have no disinclination to think he was not also inclined to harbor and align with world terrorism for his own agenda.
It is also a canard to always put solely on US oil interests. The US gets what, 20% of its oil from the ME? But what about your Euro and Asian countries? They would be totally bolloxed with a MidEast oil disruption.
The neocons, as you say, might have had US interest at heart, but it’s not like the rest of the world wasn’t going to benefit as well.
Nonetheless, we’re in 2007 now. Let’s deal with today’s problems as opposed to yesterday’s conspiracies (unless you’re a movie producer).
OK, the execution of the “nation rebuilding” exercise is/was piss poor. I’ll stipulate to that.
What would you and Nancy and Harry have us do now? Strike that. What would you guys have us do on September 2, 2008…….and assume the Iraqis still haven’t figured out how to run a country by then?
I’m hoping that a deadline will put pressure on the Iraqis to form a government. We need to try to bring the region together to support the new Iraq, which I admit is truly daunting, as removing Saddam has caused a lot of instability. I also admit that the prospects of building a united country that will resist terrorist infiltration and outside influence from Iran is pretty poor, which is why it was such a terrible idea to go in in the first place.
We can’t stay there forever. I do think we will have to leave some forces there as we have in the past in other trouble spots. I guess I’m also wondering what good is our presence really doing us or any country in the region? Why not put all of the billions we are wasting into getting off our addiction to oil or at least the oil that comes from the ME?
It would behoove us to use our resources more wisely, rebuild and repair our armed forces, so that we can be in a state of readiness. If a situation were to blow up in another trouble spot, how could we respond, with all of our resources in one place? I think we are now in a state of weakness, and the rest of the world knows it.
I really like Leon Panetta, and, I did read the entire Iraq study group report. However at some point someone must point out that some societies and cultures are so far behind and that it may be impossible to bring them into the 20th century, (much less the 21st century).
Bringing Iraq into something that resembles a free and open minded national society that shares equally the wealth of their nation may not be possible. The Iraqis, if not the entire middle east, is far to rapped up with religious differences to see the obvious benefit of religious equality, and, this bigoted attitude permeates all other forms of equality with religious hate. The Iraq study group basically is pessimistic, and, I agree with that pessimism.
I also disagree with the “commanders� opinion that “all the troops in the world� could not make peace in Iraq. It might take two or three million but at some point more troops will do the job. Unfortunately without help from the rest of the world with combat troops, it won’t happen. We simply do not have the forces to do it alone. We cannot place ourselves between the rival factions fighting an insurgency and hope that “time will heal� or “time will sort out the problems�. These rivalries have been going on for a thousand years and they will not end in a decade.
We wouldn’t have to be bothered by these warring fools if oil wasn’t part of the scenario. Oil is vital and without it the world dies. Especially the United states. So, militarily it may be that we need to annex the oil, defend it with our military, offer to allow international management of its production, and, let the Iraqis sort out their political problems outside of the oil fields. When they get it together, we can gradually give it back to them. Does this sound like more of a Teddy Roosevelt solution that a Democrat solution? Yes. So be it. I want my country to survive.
Ok, kritter, I think you and I could actually work “across the aisle” together.
I agree with deadline idea, just didn’t think announcing it to the terrorists was a similarly good idea.
And if you can live with China, Europe and Japan not having a totally secure ME oil feed, we can make do here in the US starting tomorrow. We ramp up the S. American and Canadian flows a bit and buy from the ME when the market is opportunistic. Remember the shieks need us to buy their flammable mud just as much as we need to buy it to fill up your Escalade.
We ramp up the deadlines for hybrid engine technology, give a heavy tax deduction for hybrid auto purchases, force the oil retailers to put in more ethanol pumps, etc……..put some real teeth into lessening oil dependence and I think we can put a big dent into US oil consumption in 5-10 years.
Oh ethanol will not work. Ethanol extracted from corn carries only a portion of the energy that ethanol extracted from sugar can produce, such as in Brazil.. Besides it is essentially corn alcohol and burns very fast and hot, so it is very bad for your automobile. It is a myth to think that the U.S. can ever be energy sufficient on its own resources unless we seriously reduce consumption and find better alternatives. Ethanol, in reality, is a political game being played by the republicans to gain votes in the corn belt. If it was profitably viable, it would have been done years ago on a larger scale. If government is to invest in it via the republican party, then it is only because private business will not. I suspect like so many other venues, as soon as the republicans get their political gain from touting ethanol, they will pull the rug out from under those Midwest farmers that have put their hopes into ethanol as an agricultural product. Besides, there is just something immoral in burning food when millions starve.
Casey, I have news for you. We will eventually have to take military action to stop Iran from obtaining nukes. We don’t need an “excuse” to launch a war, just the fact that this mullahcratic regime in Iran is an insane, radical, terrorist supporting islamic state bent on genocide and another holocaust, is reason enough to destroy this regime and its nuclear facilities.
The Iraq Study Group is just the handiest excuse of the anti-war crowd to flee Iraq and appease Iran.
I’m surprised the people saying this war was all about oil don’t realize that behind the Group was James Baker and others like hiim, incluidng many Bush people, with huge Arab and oil interest ties (a handy excuse to appease Iran, namely the opening of Iran’s petroleum market to the USA). Israel has nothing to do with the war in Iraq and yet Israel is included in the plan of action, which involves dangeous things (and so predictable) such as giving up the Golan Heights (so Israelis can be shelled by artillery again). It’s just a sellout to Iran, a major petroleum producer, pushed by Baker (on the Saudi payroll) and others in the Bush administration and outside it as well, who favor oil interests over Israel. Where are the haters of Big Oil? Cheering the Group because they want see the USA retreat, defer to Iran, or just fail.
I understand your feelings Laura…
But to bring down the entire house just to kill a rat…!!! As the saying goes…