My Turn At The ISG Report

Let me begin by stating that this report is not even worth the paper it is printed on. And it is no more evident that these people had a preconceived notion in the very first paragraph in the Assessment section of this report:

There is no guarantee for success in Iraq. The situation in Baghdad and several provinces is dire. Saddam Hussein has been removed from power and the Iraqi people have a democratically elected government that is broadly representative of Iraq’s population, yet the government is not adequately advancing national reconciliation, providing basic security, or delivering essential services. The level of violence is high and growing. There is great suffering, and the daily lives of many Iraqis show little or no improvement. Pessimism is pervasive.

This report, while honest in some areas, is precisely pessimistic. To them, we have already lost Iraq, and there is no reason for us to stay there. I find it disgusting that they think that we cannot turn things around. I find it equally appalling that, in their eyes, Israel has a level of blame in this war. Yet we have seen no IDF personnel in Iraq. But the Commission (which Thomas has affectionately dubbed the "Neville Chamberlain Memorial Commission") makes a point of stating that it is essential for us to push forward the two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians. Can anyone please tell me what this has to do with our efforts in Iraq, because I am having a difficult time grasping its relevance.

The report states that we should begin pulling troops out of Iraq, and it should take no longer than sixteen months. How can these people put a timetable on our exit? Despite the differences Thomas and I have with Sen. John McCain, he is quite correct today when he said the following:

"Our troops should be sent to Baghdad, or anywhere in Iraq, in order to complete a defined mission, not to serve until some predetermined date passes," the Arizona Republican said. "By placing a limited timeframe on our military commitments, we would only induce Iraqis to side with militias that will stay indefinitely, rather than with the U.S. and Government of Iraq.

We should double down on Iraq right now, increase the troop strength, and fight to win. Thomas brought it up yesterday, and we have been saying this for weeks now, that Moqtada al-Sadr needs to be dealt with, and his militia must be disbanded; by force, if necessary. The longer his militia stays together, the more sectarian violence the people of Iraq and coalition forces will face. In addition, we know that Syria and Iran have been helping al-Sadr and his army. And yet the ISG proclaims that we must talk with these two nations.

Is anyone on the ISG team paying attention to current events? How about current intelligence. Obviously they are not, which makes their recommendations even more dangerous. This report reads like a dinosaur media synopsis of the Iraq phase of the war to date. There is little that they recognize as a plus in Iraq, and much that they point to as a con. The report itself is anything but balanced, and basically shreds our efforts over there. Bryan @ Hot Air offered his thoughts today, and they mirror the general consensus amongst the center-right blogosphere:

To me, the ISG report represents the end of the sole-superpower world. We’re not a superpower anymore, not if our so-called best and brightest think that this report represents anything useful, and not if we think it’s wise to put our war planning up to a body of old hands with no new ideas, and subject their findings to an international review.

I thought we voted against the international test when we rejected John Kerry? Guess not.

And that is pretty much what they are stating in this report. We are not powerful or strong enough to finish the job. The job is a failure. And the only way to make any headway is to discuss things with Iraq's neighbors. Someone refresh my memory here: Did we discuss anything with Germany's neighbors before we made the final push into that country in World War II? How about Japan? Italy? Did we discuss things with Cambodia or Laos in Vietnam? I did not think so. When we go to war, and execute such a plan, we do not discuss them with neighboring nations unless they are helping us; and even then, we do not reveal everything to them. But yet this is precisely what the ISG is requesting we do with Iran and Syria.

These are terrorist-sponsoring nations--the two largest and most open supporters of Islamofascist terrorists--and yet we are being told to sit across from them at a diplomatic meeting, and hammer out a plan to help Iraq. Syria has stated they will not come to the table unless the United States stays out of its business with Lebanon, and they also stated that they want the Golan Heights back. We cannot abandon Lebanon to Assad, and we should not apply one ounce of pressure to the Israelis. The Israelis, for their part, have flatly refused to accept the ISG report:


In his first public reaction to the US government's Iraq Study Group (ISG) report, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert rejected the report's recommendation that Israel relinquish the Golan Heights to Syria.

"We have a different opinion," Olmert told a conference of editors in Tel Aviv on Thursday. "To the best of my knowledge, President Bush also had a different opinion on this matter. I don't know what the president will decide regarding the report, but I can say that the views that I heard from the president and from all leading administration officials on the matter of Syria were that there is no possibility of negotiations - neither American-Syrian nor Israeli-Syrian. I very much trust the president's measured consideration and responsibility."

While claiming that no one is more interested in opening talks with Syria than the Israelis, the prime minister cited the Syrian regime's ongoing support for the Islamist Hamas terrorist organization as a factor mitigating against any negotiations in the near future. Hamas is currently the ruling power in the Palestinian Authority, although many of its political offices and leading personnel are located in Damascus.

The comprehensive ISG report, which primarily addresses the situation in Iraq, was prepared by former US Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton. It claims that if the United States does not take a more leading role in the Mideast Israel-Arab conflict, there is no hope of America achieving its goals in the region. To that end, the Baker-Hamilton report recommends a summit based on the 1991 Madrid Conference model - a meeting of regional leaders that would be aimed at solving the conflict between Israel, the PA, Syria and Lebanon. In addition to an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan, the report calls upon Israel to recognize the establishment of a Palestinian state.

And we applaud Prime Minister Olmert for refusing to acknowledge the report. It is none of James Baker's business how Israel conducts itself. And it is purely idiotic to even make a connection Israel over the Iraq phase of the war on terror. Instead of being lauded by the Washington press, the ISG should have been handed Charles Johnson's "Idiotarian of the Year" award. Thus far, the center-right is correct: This report is garbage. It was predetermined before the commission even began it's work. It almost seems as though they came up with the answer, then pigeon-holed their theory around it, and called it a workable solution. There is nothing workable within this.

They want the Kerry "global test" in the region. They want Israel to capitulate to Hamas and Hezbollah. They want us talking with our enemies. This commission did not act like professionals with this report. They acted like rebels without a clue, and the proof lies with who they spoke with. None of those people have a solid understanding of the region, or the pitfalls of being in that region. And that, above all else, speaks louder than their crowing about a report that is positively worthless.

Marcie