Finally Taking the Iraq Study Group Seriously
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published May 21, 2007, 1:16 pm in News, Military / Foreign policy.
The newest Washington Post has a great article called "Second Life for Study Group" that explains how the Bush administration may be moving more toward adopting the proposals outlined in the Iraq Study Group Report: The Way Forward. You may remember that I spend several columns discussing the ins and outs of this report back when it appeared several months ago, and I still find the ideas fresh and compelling. I'm glad to see that the Bush administration is finally coming around to it, too. Specifically, the administration is trying to begin talks with the other nations around Iraq, such as Syria and Iran in an attempt to stop the sectarianism ripping Iraq apart. The administration may also be willing to set up benchmarks that Iraq will be responsible for; if they don't meet these benchmarks, then the U.S. will leave the country. Benchmarks could include things such as including Sunnis in the government, establishing peace in the north, training 5000 members of the army, etc. U.S. involvement in Iraq would depend on the country's ability to meet these benchmarks.
The Washington Post brings up a really good point at the end of its article, though:
"'The administration is sort of being slowly compelled to adopt the bipartisan consensus that the Iraq Study Group presented them in December,' said James F. Dobbins, a Rand Corp. analyst and former U.S. diplomat who served on one of the expert working groups advising the panel. 'Eventually they are going to be pulled to it regarding troop reductions.'
"The trouble, he said, is that by coming around so late, the White House may have missed the last opportunity to rally Congress to support staying in Iraq under more limited circumstances -- rather than simply pulling out. 'They are going to end up embracing all the provisions, without the benefit of bipartisanship,' Dobbins said."
Yep, I see that. In other words, the Democrats are out for blood now. They got control of Congress and they're in a stalemate with Bush where they're demanding troop withdrawal. If Bush now says that they should establish benchmarks for the Iraqis, will that pacify the Democrats? Probably not, methinks. The Democrats seem hell bent on punishing Bush, not really in finding a solution to the crisis. Yeah, they think they're doing the will of the people, fine, but I'm not really sure about that.
Let's explore the "will of the people" for just a minute. The Democrats have consistently said that they have a "mandate" from the people due to the election results in November 2006. Sure, but what does this mandate say? To me, it says change. No more. To say that the mandate is to get our troops out of Iraq may be a bit misleading. Yes, everyone wants our troops out of Iraq, that's for certain. I mean EVERYONE wants them out of there. But at what cost? Under what conditions is the public willing to allow our troops to leave Iraq? I know some people claim that failure is inevitable, but I'm not positive about that, and, besides, there are things we can do to limit or change the type of failure that we see in Iraq. I think the majority of the U.S. public is willing to pull out of there now. It would be relief, definitely. No more soldiers dying, no more reading constantly on the news about this kid from this hometown suffering some horrible death.
But at what cost? I don't have the gift of prescience, but I can imagine some horrible scenarios resulting from losing in Iraq. The biggest problem will be that the Islamists will have won. They will have pushed the U.S. military from out of their country and defeated us. That alone could be devastating. As if 9/11 didn't embolden them enough, this loss of military face would tell every would-be terrorist that the U.S. could be beaten, that the terrorists could win if they just persevered. That we will eventually give up. Will the terrorists "follow us home" as the Republican presidential hopefuls put it? Not as a result of Iraq, I don't think, for I think the terror will happen on U.S. soil again no matter whether we win or lose Iraq. The point is more the idea of losing, where our enemies will know that we are beatable and they will keep fighting because they know that eventually we will quit.
I don't want that.
But again, at what cost? What am I willing to pay to win the war? Well, now you're asking difficult questions. It's easy to point out problems, you see, but it's very difficult to solve them. My suggestion, as it was back in December, is to follow the Iraq Study Group's recommendations and see where they take you. I think benchmarks may be a good idea, as long as the silly Democrats will agree to go along with them. Yes, I wish they had done it several months ago, but I still think they could work, especially now that Iraq knows we're serious about pulling out if they don't perform their part of the pact.
And talking with Iraq's neighbors? Sheesh, we have to do that anyway. I'm glad Condoleezza is trying to start talks with Iran. While we've been bogged down in Iraq, their enemy-turned-ally Iran is most of the way toward making nuclear weapons. And we're powerless to stop them. And once they get them, I'm not sure if they will agree to get rid of them; they're no isolated Kim Jong-Il, after all. Nope, this is an Islamic state with religious ties all over the Middle East. If they get nuclear weapons, I hope they will act responsibly, but man, I'm not vouching for them. I envision a showdown between Iran and Israel, and that scares me. Because then we'll get involved, and I have no idea where we'll go from there.
So for now, let's try these ideas. Thanks, Bush, for finally coming around.
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments for this post yet...
This post has 1 feedback awaiting moderation...
Leave a comment