A splendid spanking

Quite aside from the wisdom or folly of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, and quite aside from how much, if at all, those recommendations are executed by the White House, I must admit the ISG did a bang-up job of first lowering expectations and then impressing a resigned public with its sweeping breadth -- and severity.

Watching the panel's televised Q&A session after the report's release, I was stunned -- and not alone, I'm sure -- to hear its bipartisan membership publicly condemn Mr. Bush's war management as "a nightmare" equivalent to Saddam Hussein's atrociousness.

For weeks the media rumored the ISG would have little new to say in the way of recommendations, and that much proved true, given constraints on the ground. But the way the ISG said it? That impressed.

For anyone watching yesterday ... thinking, as I did ... that James Baker was there only to wipe Junior's chin, hoist his knickers and rescue his presidency, well, we all got an education. Taking into account the sensitivity of his historical ties to the Bush Dynasty, Baker's defenestration of George W. was as firm-handed as any critic's.

"We do not recommend a stay-the-course solution," he said in direct repudiation of his old boss' scion. "In our opinion, that is no longer viable." He might as well have called George delusional. In private, I suspect he did. I also suspect Baker is no longer on the White House's Christmas card list.

The full written report (here in pdf) was, as mentioned, strongly anticipated, but just as severe -- succinctly labeling Bush's monstrous misadventure with three little words that surely prompted a presidential tantrum: "grave and deteriorating." And of Bush's macro-mismanagement the panel concluded in the present tense that "the most important questions about Iraq’s future are now the responsibility of the Iraqis." We should enlighten Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that our presence is not "open ended." In short, either Maliki's government starts producing, or for us, it's bye-bye Iraq.

Other than its harsher-then-expected temperament, if the report contained anything astonishing it was the way in which it called for "a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly." Stripping thousands of embedded American advisers of the big-brother protection of a sizable U.S. combat presence would of course move the troops out nicely, but irresponsibly leave those advisers at the mercy of their feckless, or worse, militia-aligned Iraqi "trainees."

Any of the report's irresponsible recommendations are as inconsequential as the sensible ones, however, since Bush "seriously" pronounced all of them worthy of action "in a timely fashion." Translation: they're already collecting dust. No one, let alone one of Daddy's servants, is going to tell George Jr. how to run a war.

In fact, the White House laughably declared the report a validation of its policies, in that the panel proposed no timetabled or immediate withdrawal. Then again, that singular omission was the panel's most egregious misjudgment, so in that sense it was indeed a validation of White House thinking.

Still, in my opinion the Iraq Study Group did an admirable job -- not so much in the steak, but the sizzle. Its stern tone, its somber mood, its severity in presentation penetrated the national atmosphere and stamped a final, blue-ribbon seal of approval on bipartisan condemnation of the administration.

The ISG's starkest condemnation came in a passage that clearly suggested an assessment of present fact, not mere speculation in the subjunctive: "A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq’s government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished."

Could trigger, spread, diminish, etc.? No. The verbs are realities.

Comments

[Jay Randal]

James Baker is a trouble shooter and fixer for the Bush family. He is nothing more, nor nothing less, so his Iraq Study Group Report is a slick cover for US troops remaining in Iraq for the rest of Dubya's term in office, so for 2 more years. A vague mention of combat troops being fazed out starting in early 2008, but for the next year nothing will change in Iraq. By 2008 some other excuse will be put forward to keep troops in Iraq, so Americans are being suckered again.

[janie]

The purpose of the ISG -- a group composed totally of people who showed the bad judgement to support invading Iraq in the first place -- is bluster and blather.

Why? Because every minute we are focusing on their bland, underwhelming suggestions -- some are even too late to implement -- the Bush-Cheney war profiteering machine is getting away with billions.

The ISG is yet another Bush-approved stall tactic to point focus away from the fact that these immoral bastards are getting even filthier rich from the blood of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens every minute we are in Iraq.

People are dying daily, these scumbags are profiting hourly, and (most) Americans are totally being suckered.

[Pearl Harbor today (just a reminder)]

James Baker is in on it. This is the classic 'false opposition' fake out. The Democrats normally do it but they voted FOR this war. However, Iraq is merely a bloody violent diversion. While the US army demolishes Iraq, the US gov't clamps down on rights at home by ending habeas corpus, caging protesters, banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, stealing elections, conducting warrantless wiretaps and starting 2 illegal wars based on lies. Soon, another US false-flag operation will occur (sinking of an Aircraft Carrier by Mossad) and the US will invade Iran, (on behalf of Israel).
Final link (before Google Books bends to gov't demands and censors the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

[janie]

Read the PNAC plan book for world domination. According to their 1998 memo (or there abouts), Iran and Syria are next in line for invasion.

The PNAC was also the group that suggested that it would take a disaster on the scale of "A New Pearl Harbor" to scare Americans into giving up their constitutional rights.

Then, just a few short years later Bush sat in a classroom reading My Pet Goat while his brother Marvin was in NYC watching the buildings that he was in charge of the security for, implode in 10 seconds. And Uncle Jonathan Bush was in San Diego heading up Riggs Bank which funded two of the Saudi terrorists. Or at least they told us they were terrorists.

Apparently no one wants to believe true, documented facts, or even investigate them. It's easier to believe that 'we're America... our government wouldn't do such evil things' 'George Bush is just an incompetent fool, he's not evil'.

Why do you suppose Hugo Chavez called George Bush satan? What would bring the Pope to twice say publicly that he "feared" George Bush is the devil?

This has all been in the works since long before any of us had a clue. And now that some of us do, we're brushed off as conspiracy theorists... But it's not a theory if it turns out to be true. And as far as I can figure, the only conspirators is the Bush administration, the Republican party and groups like PNAC.

[Ron Carpenter]

The death and destruction continue, but there is no effective plan for serious policy change. The Likud/Neocons won't even allow Bush to talk to Iran or Syria. The collapse of the dollar seems inevitable, and may be the catastrohic event that will finally stop the Ameica/Iraq atrocity.

[Gonnuts]

We live in interesting times. Makes me glad most of my life is behind me.