Posted on 12/03/2006 9:19:10 AM PST by FairOpinion
THE White House is resisting efforts by an advisory commission on Iraq strategy to force the pace on troop withdrawals and negotiations with Iran and Syria. At the Pentagon, the joint chiefs of staff are also determined not to be pushed into "managing defeat" after the Iraq Study Group, led by James Baker, the former secretary of state, and former Democrat congressman Lee Hamilton, reports this week.
A backlash from the Right against the long-awaited report is gathering force. The neo-conservative journal, The Weekly Standard, has derided the Baker group's work as "a fancy way of justifying surrender".
The Men's Vogue Study Group, as the 10-member commission was soon renamed, is long on puffery and short on military expertise, other critics point out. "They are a lot of greybeards with little knowledge of military operations," said Dan Goure, a defence analyst at the Lexington Institute in Virginia.
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.news.com.au ...
There is that.
AQI and the Madhi Army are in some ways responses to the presence of us, and of each other, in what the local ethnic groups perceive to be their interests. If, and this is a big if, we lower our overall signature, it may alleviate the social pressures that allow each to regain popularity. The Madhi Army, as you've said, would be little more than a few hundred gangsters without AQI. AQI would be nowhere near as strong as they are in Anbar without us as a bogeyman.
While it would be a gamble to try to reduce forces and see what happens, it's clear that going after the Madhi Army directly is off the table, and going after AQI, at the rate they regenerate, could take us much more time than what we have available before the next election. I'd be the first to admit it's a plan with risks, but the alternatives are pretty grim.
Iraq Study Group report. Is there a worse kept secret in Washington?
In fact, we should be talking to the Mahdi army, as well as other insurgents, offer them a future in the country, and alienate them from the AQ terrorists.
Don't know. I thought it was more a show than a secret.
STEEL WOLF: The President will play hard to get, but will find himself overcome with the spirit of bipartisanship, and give it a chance. Troop levels will go down, Iraqi security forces will step up. Once the U.S. body counts drops off to nothing, and Iraq stabilizes, the U.S. public will forget all about the 'cut and run' fixation, and be pleased with the progress. That's as close to victory as President Bush is going to get in 2 years, and it's not a bad one. Maybe not as cathartic as getting a declaration of surrender signed on the deck of the Missouri, but it'll be good enough.
HUMINT: you paint a nice picture Steel, but I have to ask about the flow of Sunni foreign fighters from Saudi, Egypt and other countries that we should expect are going to start streaming across the border when the Shiite Death Squads step up the killing of Sunnis around the country? Under Iran's guidance, maybe Iraq won’t devolve completely into a wasteland like Afghanistan under the Taliban but in terms of US national interests, it might as well. Do we know Tehran pulls Muqtada Al-Sadr's strings well enough to prevent him from murdering his way to the top? Or do you think the Iraqi Shi’i are going to establish a confrontational relationship with the Iranian Shi’i to establish a Karbala-Qom spiritual balance? Given that the ideology held by the theocratic government of Iran translates into cycles of upheaval and war, why should we pick sides with the Shi’i? Based on who SCIRI represents how can we consider your scenario plausible? Is the ISG the right group to be getting advice from at all, given their history? The message is loud and clear right now and I don't like what I'm hearing.
No, but he helped cost the last one. It's his theory that if the pubbies lost in '06 it would help his buddy McCain in '08.
The Madhi Army replaced the US as the major boogie man of western Iraq. That was Zarqawi's plan all along to keep the Sunnis in line. His believe was they would even put up with al-Qaeda if they were a protection from being butchered by the the Madhi Army.
Bump
"The Men's Vogue Study Group, ...... is long on puffery and short on military expertise, other critics point out."
"They are a lot of greybeards with little knowledge of military operations," said Dan Goure, a defence analyst at the Lexington Institute in Virginia.
"This group is all about creating a political consensus among the elite."
Vernon Jordan couldn't even get Monica Lewinsky a job ,well, a paying job...
but, now he's going to trump the CIC, the Pentagon, USCENTCOM, General Abizaid , etc.
And Leon Panetta ? Leon Panetta ???
Was Chelsea Clinton too busy to serve on the panel ?
If the Iraq Study Group had less Chuck Robb and Sandra Day O'Connor and more Dan Goure, it might have some credibility.
If the White House really is going to resist this, I am mystified as to why Bush hired Bob Gates, who was a member of the Group until nominated.
Young man, you just earned two years of double secret FRobation. Hope you are happy with yourself.
Bump that! LOL re Jordan and Chelsea.
Back that up with quotes and links, please. I've never heard him say anything remotely similar to this.........in fact, he frequently says the opposite.
Back up between-the-lines analysis with quotes and links to direct quotes? The point of news analysis it to figure out what people mean by what they say, in the context of their political goals and realistic limitation. If you want transcripts, watch C-Span. ;-)
We can't add more troops, for a number of reasons.
It is my understanding we ARE adding troops.
I should have been more specific. "More troops", in the context of "More troops than have thus far been in Iraq". We may be adding or cutting a few tens of thousands of troops, but that's essentially a very minor adjustment.
As for the rest of your fanciful hypothesis, you , you seem to be ignoring two things..........the President's words, and his character.
Ignoring them? They're precisely the issue. President Bush is a fundamentally good person, but he's still a politician, who is bound by political realities. Even legendary conservatives like President Reagan had to accept the limits of what they can realistically do. Words and character are important factors in political analysis, but so are things like elections and approval ratings. President Bush may very dearly want Iraq to be solved, and be willing to stick it out for the next 20 years if need be, but he'll be out of office in less than 2. He's no fool. He knows that.
He will not compromise anything based on "bi-partisanship" when it comes to Iraq.
This seems to be an article of faith with you. I'd ask for links and quotes, but if you'll indulge my analytical assessments, I'll indulge yours.
He will do what he believes is right, and continue doing what he has been doing all along.........allowing the Generals on the ground to determine troop levels and tactics, adjusting to the tactics of the enemy's actions.
Naturally. Everyone wants to win. Still, the window of opportunity is sliding closed. Sterling character and bold words aside, President Bush is up against a hard limit on time. He's got until about this time next year to pull Iraq together, before events carry it out of his hands. AQ has proven to be a quick study in American politics. They spike the violence levels before elections here, and rest assured, it will pave the way for President Clinton or Obama. President Bush is well aware that if he can't save Iraq around before then, an incoming Democratic President will kill it and lay the blame at his feel.
Your theory may make sense to you, but you've made the whole thing up out of whole cloth.
I'm fully willing to admit that while I'm pretty confident in my analysis, it could be wrong. Are you?
He has been standing up and telling the public .. but the media has been blocking him
Communication Professor Examines Media Bias in President's Speeches
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1747605/posts
(snip)
This goes beyond reporting alternate points of view. “In short,” Kupyers explained, “if someone were relying only on the mainstream media for information, they would have no idea what the president actually said. It was as if the press were reporting on a different speech.”
Sure, but so what? The Madhi Army may be dangerous, but they're in as little danger of facing U.S. firepower as Tehran is. For political reasons, they're off limits.
AQI surely seeks to keep the sectarian tensions going, but if we're not willing to summon the energy to stop them, that doesn't leave us many options. Reducing our signature in Iraq and putting ourselves on the back burner may prompt all communities, Sunni and Shia, to get over the occupation, and focus on their own problems.
I agree it's a big risk, but what else do we have that is politically acceptable?
Just wanted to say thank you for your posts
They've been very informative
Perhaps you should have stated clearly that you were engaging in wild hypothesis based on the fact that the President is merely a politician, and therefore is doing what any old politician would do (even though he has never given a rip about polls, and he's not running for reelection.........is he?). It would have saved us both a lot of time.
My point is that I know what President Bush has said (ALL of it........that's why we are derided as 'Bushbots'), and none of what he has actually said backs up your hypothesis. It's not really 'faith' to believe he's telling the truth about Iraq, is it? Unless you are one of those 'Bush lied' folks (in which case you have a deep problem that can't be dealt with here).
At any rate, now that you've clarified that your 'analysis' is based on a whole series of presumptions with no factual foundation, I know all I need to know about it.
Thanks for the polite conversation.
yah i agree mol- sad that the press is so dang biased- we only get one view point- ranting liberal media opinions only for the most part http://sacredscoop.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.