Why Conservatives Don't Like the Iraq Study Group
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published December 18, 2006, 1:40 pm in Military / Foreign policy.
Consider this great G.W. Bush snippet: "And this is an administration -- we're not into nation-building, we're focused on justice. And we're going to get justice. It's going to take a while, probably. But I'm a patient man. Nothing will diminish my will and my determination -- nothing."
Well, after completing the Iraq Study Group Report (ISGR), we're in a mess of trouble. Not only are we in the business of nation-building, but it's a difficult business, to say the least. I have mentioned before that the picture the ISGR presents of the situation in Iraq is dire, bleak, beyond what I had originally thought. And after reading all 79 of their recommendations, it seems nearly impossible.
The ISGR tries to do it all. First, it tries to discuss the U.S. role in Iraq, and that role is not that easy to parse. Second, it tries to describe solutions to the U.S. problems in Iraq, including Congressional budgets. And third, it tries to describe solutions to the general situation in Iraq, including U.S. invovlvement there. That's a heck of a lot of stuff what amounts to a 96-page report (not including the "Executive Summary" and appendices). I really can't imagine trying to do all that in 1000 pages. Entire books are written on our involvement in Iraq and the ISGR attempts to do it all in 96 pages. Man, that's bold.
(But honestly, it could have been shorter. As a side note, anyone wanting to read the ISGR can skip the actual recommendations. The paragraphs between the recommendations are much more interesting and better written. The recommendations just repeat what those paragraphs already said.)
So the ISG has been called surrender monkeys by some on the right because they see the group as giving up. These is no such thing as a "graceful exit," I heard one commentator say, "that doesn't invovle winning." I really don't understand these criticisms. They seem to be coming from people who haven't read the report. If anything, I think the ISGR outlines what it takes to win, not what it takes to pull out. Heck, that's easy: get a few C-5s in there and it shouldn't take but a week to bring everyone back home.
But the consequences of that are very bad indeed: a civil war leading to a dictator or at least extreme suppression.
I know what liberals don't like about it, for that part is easy. The ISGR comes right out and says, "The point is not for the United States to set timetables or deadlines fo rwithdrawal, an approach that we oppose." But it doesn't end there. The very next sentence: "The point is for the United States and Iraq to make clear their shared interest in teh orderly departure of U.S. forces as Iraqi forces take on the security mission" (pages 66-67).
So the document doesn't want to set a timetable; that much is clear. But the point is for the U.S. to withdraw. Everyone wants that, after all, but it is a question of when; at what point can we consider the situation "complete" so that the U.S. can withdraw? But not a "timetable." Instead, as G.W. Bush says, it should be when the mission is finished. But he already say it was accomplished in 2003? Anyway, no timetable, yet the ISGR gives us a timetable: "By the first quarter of 2008, subject ot unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq" (72). Sounds almost like a timetable, doesn't it? I guess it's not, though, because it leaves in the escape clause, which is always necessary, the "subject to unexpected developments" part. So if everything goes exactly as the ISGR says it should and the U.S. does everything the ISGR recommends, then troops can begin coming home by the beginning of 2008.
I know quite a few liberals who won't like that timeframe.
So what do the conservatives object to, then? The ISGR basically says that the U.S. should stay in Iraq until the job is done. If everything doesn't go as planned, it says, then the U.S. should remain there past 2008. It agrees that we can't just pull them out, which is what conservatives have been saying all along.
Here's my take on it: the ISGR represents an outsider group telling the President and his administration to change their course, and that's, well, unthinkable.
Here is what they object to:
Talking to rogue states.
This one is anathema to the Bush administration. Syria plays a major role in terrorism in the Middle East, and the ISGR says we have to talk to them to get them to protect Iraq's border and prevent the entry of arms, money, or terrorists into the country. What is Syria's incentive? Israel will return the Golan Heights. This is territory on the border of Syria, Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon that Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War. The ISGR says that "In exchange for these actions and in the context of a full and secure peace agreement, the Israelis should return the Golan Heights, with a U.S. security guarantee for Israel that could include an international force on teh border, including U.S. troops if requested by both parties" (57). And there it is again, making Israel give up its territory, as I discussed in my last column.
And then there's Iran, that rogue of rogues that continues to snub its nose at us. But Iran needs to do its part, too. What is their incentive? Well, that we won't seek regime change there. Whoa, whoa, whoa. We may not be into nation-building, but we sure are into regime change, and this regime is bad, very bad. Therefore, it should probably go. But if Iran cooperates with Iraq, then, well, we'll leave Iran alone. We still don't want them to have nukes, but we won't bother with their government anymore.
Forcing peace between Israel and everyone else.
See my last post. I already talked about this one. Two interesting statements, though: "The United States does its ally Israel no favors in avoiding direct involvement to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict" (54) and then "No American administration--Democratic or Republican--will ever abandon Israel" (55). You bet.
Setting milestones for the Iraqi government.
According the ISGR, the Iraqi government has to make significant strides toward securing peace and taking over all Iraqi peacekeeping. If the government does not stick to its end of the bargain and doesn't reach these milestones, then the U.S. cannot build their nation for them, and should withdraw.
This is the big one. This is where people say that it is a kind of timetable without a timetable. It is a timetable according to results, not according to time, but those results must be met within a given amount of time. So no matter what the ISGR says about timetables, it is one. But it's one I think I can live with.
General criticism of the Iraq war.
This is, well, just unpatriotic, right? Those lost souls like myself should just be strung up.
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
Leave a comment