The Iraq Study Group headed by James Baker gave it's report yesterday. Basically it is a useless report. It tries to redifine the victory condition as "stability" in the region and the ability for US troops to leave Iraq. The report contains two basic ideas.
One idea that it does support is talking to Iran and Syria. Because somehow negotiating with people like this will suddenly work. That's like the Redskins asking the Cowboys at halftime if they wouldn't mind helping them win. Stupid. Totally fails to acknowledge the real enemy.
The report also says that we should focus on train more Iraqi troops, and that Iraqis must take more of the security responsibility on themselves. Well duh. This to me seems almost derogetory considering how hard the military has been training and helping the Iraqi army. And honestly the story of the Iraqi army is an inspiring one.
Think about it. As a miliary body they are really only 3 years old and are now patrolling a majority of the Country. A big secret that the media keeps from you is that at this point in time most of the "sectarian violence" is basically contained in two provinces. The Iraqi army and police force will grow as fast they can and do a great job I have no doubt, but to suggest that we aren't doing a good enough job in this area is a gross disservice to them and the people training them.
Some high level Iraqis are justifiably indignant. From an Iraqi perspective the ISG has reccomended hanging them out to dry and finding ways to leave them with a mess we created.
These guys(ISG) remind me of the Scottish Nobles in Braveheart. You know, no stomach for the fight because they don't care enough about the actual reason for the fight, a blind faith in negotiation, and constantly redefining victory as existance. (I'm not going to compare Bush to William Wallace. If only right?)
Keep in mind that this report is just advisory, it actually carries no real weight at all. However you will hear lots of media types wondering if "Bush will listen". Implying that Bush is the only problem, and his ignorance is what is making us lose in Iraq. And it will be used by Democrats in congresss to give legitimacy to their cut and run policies.
What makes me sad is that on this day, the aniversery of Pearl Harbor, there is way more Vietnam style feeling in this country than WW2 patriotism. We went in to Iraq to fight against terrorists, depose a brutal regime, and to serve notice to the world that there was a price to pay for encouraging and supporting the enemies of freedom. The ISG people completely miss the point of the war, and even go so far as to deny that there is even a war. We are fighting Islamic extremism, and those who support it. Part of that battle is establishing democratic foothold in the region, something that is much much much harder than a battle itself.
Where is our resolve? Where is our steadfast support? Bipartisan should mean putting this country's interests above political ones, not insulting the efforts and progress that has been made. In Iraq we are fighting a new kind of fight which calls for new tactics, different strategies, innovative ideas regarding ways to take the fight to the enemy. But the goals are still the same, the enemy is the same, and the cost of losing is the same.
But instead of coming up with new ways to win we have to have "bipartisan" committees try and find really creative ways to lose.
Linked to Jo's Cafe and Basil's Blog and Stop The ACLU
