The Baker Report

Well, It’s finally out. It states that conditions in Iraq are “grave and deteriorating” and that the Bush policy is “not working”. The President has promised to study it.

A couple of key recommendations:
Most troops can be withdrawn by 2008 Talk to Iran and Syria Set deadlines and benchmarks for Iraqi progress Train Iraqi troops Restart peace talks in Israeli-Palestinian conflict Increase US aid for Reconstruction

My only question is when do we declare defeat? Because all of the above are the exact ideas that Bush has been rejecting for years.

We could implement every one of these suggestions and still end up with a destabilized Middle East. The fight is between Sunnis and Shiites – it’s political with significant religious overtones. Those kinds of arguments don’t get settled in a year or two or one hundred. Is it any wonder authoritarian regimes have had so much “success”? Saddam was bad (for Iraqis – he never posed a direct threat to the US as far as I can tell); but what we’re left with is worse. We probably need to do what the report says, but the outlook is still very bleak. Perhaps the time has come to emphasize defense (i.e., how do we protect our country from the effects of Mid-East destabilization) and let go of our misguided offense (i.e., how can we mold a country we don’t understand into a Western-style democracy).

I’m surprised I haven’t heard the old talking points about how everyone on the Committee is anti-American or loves the terrorists and hates freedom. For some strange reason, that old rhetoric is just not as comforting to so many people, including so many here on this forum that gladly spread it for years.

I will say the group did miss out on an important conclusion by not accepting that we are winning.

Is the report in bookstores yet or just available online?

It is in bookstores and quickly becoming a best seller.

Is the book in the Fictional section?

Found my copy in the “Can you believe we were so stupid” section.

As a Republican, I think the Baker report is great tool for Bush to use. I think he has dug his heels in enough that he will not implement most of the recommendations – clearly thought out ideas and concepts that will make a significant difference in the region.

I think involving Iran and Syria is a great idea. I think getting Iraq to take more responsibility for the establishment of their own government is genius. Regardless of how it got there, we need their help in moving forward. Without it, we are just going to continue in the status quo.

Mike

I think involving Iran and Syria is a great idea.

I agree 100%.

Art and many others here though are convinced that it is a big mistake to even have dialog with them. I always have to question that logic when we can all see that what we have been doing for the last 3.5 years is simply not working.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

The problem of not involving them and Iran is that after we leave it will be a free for all with several countries trying to divide up the country through military means. Take the rug out from under them before we leave and get them involved before, it would make them look like idoits to the region and the entire world.

Neither Iran or Syria have good international diplomacy records. The way I see it, they are the worst of the worst in even dealing with other Muslim countries. So at least you can keep an eye on them and make them publicly commit to a course of action. If they don’t cooperate in the first place or go back on their word, at least you will be aware of it and will be able to scream and holler about their actions.

That part of the plan is sooo passive aggressive that it sounds like it may have come from me.

Mike

PS. I really think Art and the rest of my conservative bretheren have a point. I feel that coupled with the other tenets of the plan, it will work. Use it as a stand alone piece of action and it would fail.

You can download the report for free:

http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/iraq_study_group_report.pdf

It’s amazing that the report set the political stage for failing in Iraq and allowing a humanitarian disaster to ensue. This country has no guts. I’ve never been for the war, but accepting a humiliating defeat seems so much worse on so many levels.

I’m off to buy my copy in a few minutes. I hope the B.dalton or whatever we have in the local mall has it.

Peter

I think involving Iran and Syria is a great idea.

I agree 100%.

Not even a minutes’ hesitation?

I’m surprised I haven’t heard the old talking points about how everyone on the Committee is anti-American or loves the terrorists and hates freedom.

http://www.nypost.com/

Check out the front page- saw it on my way to work this morning

Ha. I should have known better.

NBC Nightly News pretty much discounted the report tonight, saying that many in Iraq and DC said it painted a flawed picture of the situation in Iraq.

I think involving Iran and Syria is a great idea.

I agree 100%.

Well, it has been seven hours and no response, so maybe you did have a moments hestitation? I can only hope.

What I wanted to get at is that while getting Iran and Syria involved in talks regarding Iraq is probably a good idea, it is double edge sword, and the U.S. will have to tip toe on the knife edge.

Specifically, although the U.S. has military bases in Bahrain and Kuwait, the principle U.S. ally in the region is Saudi Arabia. The problem with this is Saudi Arabia is predominently Sunni. There is already plenty of tension in the U.S. - Saudi Arabia relationship over the Israel/Palestine quagmire. Saudi Arabia is also supposedly a source of Sunni insurgents and possibly weapons contributing to the Iraqi conflict.

While I am not quite sure of the Syrian Islamic preference, I am guessing that they are Sunni as well. Iran on the other hand, is definitely Shiite. Thus, inclusion of Iran and Syria will present another degree of difficulty in balancing Sunni-Shiite tensions and conflicts beyond those already present inside Iraq.

To expect more out of Iran and Syria than just discussing the situation will also cost the U.S. something with respect to negotiations. In my mind, Iran and Syria will use the opportunity of even just talks to negotiate for something. Even just even showing up at the table will justify a gift in their point of view, as they would view the situation as one of “we (the U.S.) need them more than they need us”.

For Iran, it is not too difficult to see them asking, if not demanding that the U.S. and the U.N. Security Council for that matter, back off on threats to Irans’ nuclear activities. I would also expect them to tell the U.S. to drop its pro-democracy efforts with respect to Iran.

For Syria, the obvious goal from my perspective would be to lift the border security between Syria and Iraq and to allow border crossing rights for both people and “goods”. In other words, allow free passage of more insurgents and weapons. Syria also has a bigger stake in the Palestianian struggle and may demand concessions there. How does restoring financial aid to the Hamas government, terrorist label or not, sound to you?

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that Iraq is in Iran’s and Syria’s back yard. They should have some involvement. But historically and with current regimes, their motives and objectives are more than a little suspect. It leaves the road for the U.S. to travel, that much narrower.

All this is summed up nicely by Zymurgy’s First Law of Evolving Systems Dynamics, a collarary of Murphys’ Law. It states: Once you open up a can of worms, the only way to recan them is to use a larger can.

I hope we can find a larger can.

Did you notice that thread got pulled. Think it had anything to do with exposing your two mates?

“My only question is when do we declare defeat?”

You can’t wait can you?

“Did you notice that thread got pulled. Think it had anything to do with exposing your two mates?”

Not sure what you’re talking about. Which thread got pulled and who did you “expose?”