Having had a chance to both read the report of the Iraq Study Group and listen to the authors defend and explain it, it is now very clear exactly what they are proposing. The gist of the report is that they're suggesting the modern equivalent of Vietnamization for Iraq. I suppose this should be called Iraqization, but that sounds strange and lacks the reminder of the prior use of the same policy, so let's stick with calling it Vietnamization.
Vietnamization was the policy adopted by the Nixon administration towards the end of the Vietnam war which consisted of a combination of increased training and additional material and monetary support for the government of South Vietnam in combination with negotiations with the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese government to try to negotiate the survival of South Vietnam. This was a change away from a strategy of escalation of US forces and a diplomatic approach which avoided direct negotiation with the main instigators of conflict, the Vietcong.
Vietnamization is famous today because it did not work. The South Vietnamese army was not in any way prepared to expand its role, the South Vietnamese government was corrupt and squandered or stole the resources we gave them, and the Vietcong had no intention of honoring any settlement which was negotiated with them. Admittedly Nixon's cupidity didn't help, but in the main Vietnamization did not work because it could not work. It was not a route to a positive outcome in Vietnam; it came down to a way to attempt to change our role there so that we could pull out and blame failure there on the South Vietnamese government and minimize our responsibility.
The report's proposals for Iraq amount to very much the same thing as Vietnamization and it faces the same problems. It proposes increasing training and support for the Iraqi military so that the central government can take firm control of the country, and negotiation with the main instigators of conflict in the area, Syria and Iran.
The Iraqi military is probably more dedicated and has more potential than the South Vietnamese army, but it is riddled with sectarian partisans and training it will take a substantial period of time. The Iraqi government has a fair share of corruption, but more importantly it's not firmly in control of enough resources and territory to exert the force it needs to run the country without help and it can't gain that control without a dominant military. The Syrians and the Iranians are the equivalent of the Vietcong in this context and they have been proven to be just as inhumane, fanatical, and treacherous. They take to heart the advice in the Koran that agreements made with unbelievers are inherently not binding. Making deals with them and expecting them to comply is ridiculously naive and it's hard to believe that an experienced diplomat like James Baker actually signed off on the idea.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
For those trying the link to a free download of the PDF of the report, be patient. The link is the only one I could find and apparently the same is true for many others, so it's running slow and sometimes not downloading at all.
Dave
2 - Les Slater
..."main instigators of conflict in the area, Syria and Iran."
It's interesting how some are so willing to forget how all this got Lesstarted.
3 - Lumpy
What bothers me about the ISG is that they don't seem to have even tried to look at real solutions to the iraq situation. They just focused on the most politically expedient way to cut and run.
4 - Dave Nalle
..."main instigators of conflict in the area, Syria and Iran."
It's interesting how some are so willing to forget how all this got Lesstarted.
That all depends on how you define 'all this'. I define 'all this' as the post-war influx of Al Qaeda and Iranian and Syrian sponsored agitators. The war was effectively over by the time they started coming into the country and turning the situation there into a new and different sort of conflict. If they had not come in then it would have just been a matter of pacifying and/or negotiating with the Baathists. Their entry into the situation, not the US presence, is what created the current mess, and the responsibility for that is clearly and undeniably on them.
Dave
5 - Sisyphus
"Their entry into the situation, not the US presence, is what created the current mess,..."
No, you really cannot shift the blame so easily. The U.S. clearly precipitated a vacuum that the likes of Al Qaeda and outside state-sponsored agitators were more than eager to fill. It does not matter if such consequences were unforeseen or not -- the cause and effect remain what they are.
6 - Dave Nalle
Sisyphus, the idea was that a new Iraqi government would fill that void. Admittedly the US didn't make that transation happen quickly enough, but that wouldn't have been a problem had the Syrians, Iranians and Al Qaeda not taken advantage of it. Don't try to blame the victim - well, one of the victims. Fault still lies primarily with those who have been actively promoting terror and the killing of civilians.
Dave
7 - MCH
"What bothers me about the ISG is that they don't seem to have even tried to look at real solutions to the iraq situation. They just focused on the most politically expedient way to cut and run."
- Lumpy
It's still not too late to enlist, Lumpy.
8 - STM
Dave: the planning for the peace was pretty poor, you must admit. Sisyphus is absolutely right about the power vacuum and as a student of such things you would know this too.
The sad thing about it is, it's always been there and has had to be filled by heavy-handed if not murderous dictatorships (which the US and Britain clearly are not) - right from the time of independence from the British in the 1930s.
The first civilian government in Iraq only lasted four years before the first coup and it's been game on since then.
I can't understand the reasoning of people like Rumsfeld, who just thought we could all merrily go in there with a very successful military campaign - and it was - and just think that everything would take care of itself.
There was such a glaring risk from a historical perspective even blind freddy could have seen it.
Now we must find a course of action that spares Iraq further horror and saves face for everyone without opening the region up to more Iranian meddling. It WILL decend into a real civil war otherwise.
9 - Bliffle
This is the wretched course that GWB set us on when he frivolously decided to invade Iraq. And it is the wretched course that his supporters kept us on when we discovered no WMD but they decided to keep at war anyway. This dreadful conundrum is the result of warrior civilians who were so dead sure certain of the future that they could make no future plans. They have eliminated all the good options and left us with nothing but ignominy in our futures.
10 - STM
Unlike Vietnam, this isn't a military defeat. The coalition won the war but forgot that other things needed to be done straight afterwards. They weren't. And how anyone can think that it wasn't a good thing to rid this country of Saddam Hussein is beyond me.
As I've said before, the majority of Iraqis - those who aren't setting off roadside bombs or sniping at coalition soldiers - are not unhappy about Saddam being removed.
They are unhappy about what happened afterwards. But they also share the same aims as the coalition: one of which is the right to live without being blown up.
These are the people who shouldn't be forgotten in our haste to piss off out of the place to save face.
11 - handyguy
Blaming Iran and Syria for the insurgency is simplistic. Even experienced American commanders in Iraq don't seem to have a clear handle on exactly who makes up the insurgent groups...they're a mix of ex-soldiers, ex-criminals, Baathist Iraqis, other Sunnis who fear a Shiite state. "Al Qaeda types" [not clear whether they are really Al Qaeda, whatever that is, or other Islamists] may make up only a small percentage, but they have caused very visible violence.
Iran's influence is not with the Sunni insurgency, but with the Shia militias, which are certainly a problem, but a very separate one. The Shia-Sunni conflict, formerly kept in check by Saddam's oppression, may well continue no matter what we do.
Baker's suggestion that we "negotiate" with Syria and Iran is certainly not intended to mean we should roll over and do whatever those countries want...the goal would be to open a dialogue with two countries that would face massive refugee problems if the war keeps spiralling - and even to expose them as obstructionists if that is indeed the case.
Isolating them, threatening them, and assuming we know their intentions without any attempt at even the most basic diplomacy is typical of the Bush-Cheney-Rice worldview, which is what got us into this mess to begin with.
There are very few viable options left that are likely to work, certainly not quickly. We are in for a long, unpleasant couple of years (at least).
12 - Lumpy
MCH. We've been over this before. No branch of the military wants someone who can barely walk. I did work as a civilian contractor for the pentagon for several years, but that's as close as I'm likely to come to serving in the military despite my desire, at least until they start bringing in people for electronic warfare solely on the basis of their video game skills.
Since you're so concerned about everyone's military service I wonder why you didn't stay in the service after fulfilling the minimum requirement when you were drafted. Surely your experience would have been valuable.
13 - Dave Nalle
the planning for the peace was pretty poor, you must admit. Sisyphus is absolutely right about the power vacuum and as a student of such things you would know this too.
Sure, the planning was poor. But the fact that a power vacuum was created doesn't excuse those who took advantage of it for nefarious purposes.
The sad thing about it is, it's always been there and has had to be filled by heavy-handed if not murderous dictatorships (which the US and Britain clearly are not) - right from the time of independence from the British in the 1930s.
It's a fair bet that it will be filled by a heavy handed dictator before this decade has come to an end, and that may be the best solution.
I can't understand the reasoning of people like Rumsfeld, who just thought we could all merrily go in there with a very successful military campaign - and it was - and just think that everything would take care of itself.
I think they banked on Chalabi having the support he claimed to have and setting him up as a puppet. Then when it turned out he didn't have the backing he had claimed they had to start improvising and that's where it all went bad.
Dave
14 - RJ Elliott
This is the wretched course that GWB set us on when he frivolously decided to invade Iraq.
"Frivolously" ???
After the UN voted 15-0 in favor of "serious consequences" for Iraq?
After both Houses of the US Congress voted in favor of invasion by wide margins?
Polls of American voters at the time showed support for the invasion at about 70%...
"Frivolously" ???
"[W]e discovered no WMD but they decided to keep at war anyway.
1 - We did discover WMDs, just not any enormous stockpiles...
2 - Do you think the US should have fled Iraq immediately after no major stockpiles of WMDs were found? Despite the fact that al-Qaeda terrorists had infiltrated the country by then?
15 - RJ Elliott
"Unlike Vietnam, this isn't a military defeat."
Hell, even Vietnam wasn't really a military defeat. The US and its allies (including Australia) has won almost every battle fought. The "defeat" in Vietnam was a political one, just like the "defeat" we are about to face in Iraq.
16 - Bliffle
RJ Elliot:
"Frivolously" ???
After the UN voted 15-0 in favor of "serious consequences" for Iraq?
I don't share your high opinion of the UN
After both Houses of the US Congress voted in favor of invasion by wide margins?
Sheep, led by sheepish Rs and Ds afraid of being called peacenik pussies. Besides, they didn't vote to invade, they voted, in their usual cowardly way, to allow GWB to decide to invade.
Polls of American voters at the time showed support for the invasion at about 70%...
Sure, even I supported the invasion, under sway of the lies they promulgated. At least I admitted I was deceived by lies and recanted, unlike most.
"Frivolously" ???
"[W]e discovered no WMD but they decided to keep at war anyway.
1 - We did discover WMDs, just not any enormous stockpiles...
Trivial WMD, and NO NUKES!
2 - Do you think the US should have fled Iraq immediately after no major stockpiles of WMDs were found?
Why not? Leaving then would not have been fleeing, but it will soon become 'fleeing'.
Despite the fact that al-Qaeda terrorists had infiltrated the country by then?
Sez who? We need a good anti-AQ guy in Iraq, like Saddam. Who's the bonehead who decided to get rid of him?
17 - SHARK
Iraq?
Can we be done with this?
WE LOST.
...A long time ago.
THERE IS NOTHING LEFT TO *DISCUSS.
USA: get the fuck out.
*unless it's... "How many Republican/Libertarian, **macho typists on Blogcritics can pine for an imaginary 'victory' dance on the head of a pin?"
** as MCH so often points out: it's interesting how many right-wingers want to continue a futile, unwinnable american foreign policy -- as long as it's ***SOME OTHER AMERICAN GETTING KILLED FOR NO GOOD REASON. (3 died yesterday, 12/11/06)
***speaking of Vietnam, John Kerry's 1971 words come back to haunt us: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
So how do you, ya pack of delusional, chickenshit blowhards?
18 - SHARK
See comment #4 for a good example of Nalle's DELUSIONAL rewriting of history.
BTW: Here's the key to the problem, Davey: (read it carefully)
one can't "rebuild -- institute democracy -- unite --stabilize" (etc etc etc) Iraq --
BECAUSE:
~get this~
THERE AIN'T NO IRAQ.
There never was.
It's a FANTASY of early 20th century western imperialists who redrew the maps for a buncha uneducated, macho, medieval, misogynistic, TRIBAL assholes.
19 - SHARK
LUMPY: "...What bothers me about the ISG is that they don't seem to have even tried to look at real solutions to the iraq situation. They just focused on the most politically expedient way to cut and run."
Um, Lump-boy, the folks at The Karl Rove Center for Orwellian Media Manipulation called: they want their empty, meaningless, irrelevant old phrase back.
Yer welcome.
20 - SHARK
RJ, just shut up. Okay?
Seriously, man, that shit is SOOOO FUCKING TIRED.
Go play football with your little buddies.
We'll talk after Bush's reign ends -- when Colin Powell and about a hunerd other Bush administration employees start writing books and singin' like canaries on crack.
You should wait until then before attempting to continue your bullshit about their War Marketing Program.
Thanks in advance,
S
21 - SHARK
CONTEXT:
As of 12/10/2006
2,932 AMERICAN SOLDIERS KILLED
22,057 AMERICAN SOLDIERS WOUNDED.
========
...and to anyone who wants our troops to stay in Iraq ONE MORE day:
Fuck you. You're evil.
========
PS: Two names I know yall don't wanna be REMINDED OF:
Scott Ritter
Cindy Sheehan
~next~
22 - Dave Nalle
1 - We did discover WMDs, just not any enormous stockpiles...
Trivial WMD, and NO NUKES!
To be fair, even the administration didn't claim there were actual nukes in Iraq, just that Iraq was stockpiling nuclear materials, which was certainly absolutely true. If I recall correctly they found 1800 kilos of enriched uranium and about 10 times that much yellowcake. That alone pretty much fills all the requirements for WMD materials anyone could ask for.
Dave
23 - Maurice
Yes we cannot win with our current feeble efforts.
In WWII we would kill over 80,000 people a night with incendiary bombs. Nobody has that kind of backbone today.
What Would Reagan Do (WWRD) with Fallujah? He would have bombed the shit out of it.
The military is currently being abused. They should be allowed to kill people and break things until our enemies surrender. That is their purpose. Do not send them if you don't want them to fullfill their purpose.
24 - handyguy
The best parts of the ISG report do not directly concern Sunnis or Syrians or Iranians. There were never going to be any miraculous or brilliant new solutions in the report, and it was unrealistic for us to expect any.
No, the best parts of the report are the rebukes to the Bush administration, such as:
- Stop leaving funding for the war out of the budget and putting it in "emergency requests" - a slight of hand designed to skew deficit numbers. (This is from recommendation #72)
- Stop under-reporting violence. The report uses as an example one day in July when the US reported 93 acts of violence, while the ISG was able to identify 1100!
- Allow and encourage the military to offer independent advice to the Pentagon and the president. (Rumsfeld did the opposite, and Bush reinforced this by tolerating it.)
As the NY Times put it:
"It is mind-boggling that this commission felt compelled to deliver Governing 101 lessons to the president of the United States. But that fits with the implicit message of the entire exercise " a rebuke of the ideologically blinkered way Mr. Bush operates."
25 - Bliffle
You'd think the admin would have been a little more welcoming to the ISG since not one of the ISG members was against the invasion in the first place.
So I guess we can lay to rest the notion that only hawks have the cajones to discuss peace.