The ISG report.

[Mark1031]

They are correct when they say that the costs of losing Iraq will be very, very high.

We actually don't know that yet. It will be bad for the Iraqis no question and there will be massive blood letting but it is not so bad if it doesn;t spread beyond the boarders. I suspect it will become like Lebanon with strong proxy influence and occasional outbreaks of violence (after the initial big one). Not good but not a disaster.

 

[MobBoss]

The ISG report is just so much wankery as long as it does not acknowledge the need for a change in the American leadership.

What? Are elections not good enough for you?

 

[Little Raven]

The ISG report is just so much wankery as long as it does not acknowledge the need for a change in the American leadership.

Given that

• There are constitutional limits on how fast leadership can change.
• It's pretty clear from the last election that said change will come as fast as it possibly can.

how is the ISG supposed to constructively address this issue?

 

[Little Raven]

I suspect it will become like Lebanon with strong proxy influence and occasional outbreaks of violence (after the initial big one). Not good but not a disaster.

Are you kidding?

Best case scenario: We will have installed a pro-Iranian government in the South and vastly increased Iranian influence throughout the Shi'a world. That will place the Revolutionary Guard right next to the Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields - upon which the energy security of the entire Western world rests. At the same time, we have created a situtional that all but assures future conflict between Turkey and the Kurds, handed Al Qaeda a new stomping ground in Anbar, and further emasculated the governments of our few remaining allies in the Middle East, feeding the Islamist sentiment across the region.

By traditional measures of US foreign policy, that is a defeat of almost unimaginable proportions.

 

[Mark1031]

I disagree that Iraq is in fact in civil war. Civil unrest, of course.

I happen to think that WMD was indeed found in Iraq via the 500+ chemical shells found since the war and the radioactive materials we recovered.

I also dont think Iraq has greatly strengthed Iran....greatly emboldened maybe, strenghtened? No.

I disagree you were right and its going to take more than just you saying so to prove it.

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area.

whatever. Are we speaking english?

I don;t expect you to believe me but before the war I predicted that they would not find WMD except for some old chemical munitions. Exactly what happened. Don't know if I posted it here and I don;t care I know I said it.

Iran not strengthened. Really? Ever play civ? you don't think a country is strengthened when its adversiarial neighbors army is destroyed by another force and the group with a strong cultural tie to that country takes over. I know it's just a game but those aspects are true in the real world as well.

 

[jameson]

What? Are elections not good enough for you?

As far as I'm aware, the only power Congress has to influence war policy is to hold hearings and threaten to cut funding, the latter being a complete non-starter for obvious reasons. Neither the President nor the Vice-President will be running for re-election in 2008, so they no longer face political accountability.
Short of impeachment then, the reality is that any recommendations for action on Iraq must take into account the fact that the Bush Administration will be in charge of implementing them for the next two years (or not implementing them, as the case may be). The only thing Democratic control of Congress means in that case is that they'll run the risk of sharing the blame for any further failures.

There was of course no way for Baker-Hamilton to constructively address this issue. But that's an argument against the ISG, not an argument for its recommendations.

 

[Mark1031]

Are you kidding?

Best case scenario: We will have installed a pro-Iranian government in the South and vastly increased Iranian influence throughout the Shi'a world. That will place the Revolutionary Guard right next to the Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields - upon which the energy security of the entire Western world rests. At the same time, we have created a situtional that all but assures future conflict between Turkey and the Kurds, handed Al Qaeda a new stomping ground in Anbar, and further emasculated the governments of our few remaining allies in the Middle East, feeding the Islamist sentiment across the region.

By traditional measures of US foreign policy, that is a defeat of almost unimaginable proportions.

No I'm not kidding. It is a disasterous set back yes but it is only a real disaster IF a kurdish war happens or if there is a Suni-Shia war in the oil fields. I don;t think they will. I do think we should sit down with Iran, acknowledge the realities on the ground Yalta style and make it clear that certain behavior will bring disasterous consequences.

 

[MobBoss]

whatever. Are we speaking english?

Whatever yourself: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020gl.htm
I am writing english. Can you read it?

I don;t expect you to believe me but before the war I predicted that they would not find WMD except for some old chemical munitions. Exactly what happened. Don't know if I posted it here and I don;t care I know I said it.

Well, your prediction was wrong. We also found roughly 1.7 tons of enriched uranium. And other items as well. But apparently thats not enough for you.

I find it hilarious how leftys accuse the USA of selling Iraq WMD which consisted of a few grams of commercial anthrax for vaccine purposes, but wont call 500+ sarin/mustard shells and 1.7 tons of enriched uranium not.

Iran not strengthened. Really? Ever play civ?

Are you really trying to allude that a game has any direct bearing on the current real world events? Get serious please because that is laughable.

you don't think a country is strengthened when its adversiarial neighbors army is destroyed by another force and the group with a strong cultural tie to that country takes over. I know it's just a game but those aspects are true in the real world as well.

No, I dont. Iran and Iraq hadnt been at war for almost 15 years when we invaded. Now, I do think they are emboldened and most certainly feel more comfortable in their saber rattling - but in turn Iraq getting invaded didnt somehow make the Iranian military more effective or powerful.

 

[innonimatu]

That would be:

Iraq able to defend itself? - unchecked.
Religous violence quelled? - unchecked.

This is bullfeathers and you should know it. Should this be achieved (ant its not even being tried, quite the opposite) Bush would simply make up yet another reason to continue with its imperial occupation of Iraq. The parts of the job left to do:

Iraq controlled by a puppet government? - unchecked.
Iranian competition for influence in the ME destroyed? - unchecked.

It's not going to happen. But by all means, do continue ruining your own contry (along with Iraq and Iran, what do I care?) trying to achieve this, if you feel like doing it. Freedom should be respected, right?

 

[Little Raven]

It is a disasterous set back yes but it is only a real disaster IF a kurdish war happens or if there is a Suni-Shia war in the oil fields.

You don't consider ceding Anbar to Al Qaeda to be a 'real disaster?'

'Cause I promise you, going from the backwoods of Afghanistan to the center of the Sunni Triangle is the very definition of 'trading up.'

 

[MobBoss]

This is bullfeathers and you should know it.

Uhmmmm, no, I dont know it.

Should this be achieved (ant its not even being tried, quite the opposite) Bush would simply make up yet another reason to continue with its imperial occupation of Iraq. The parts of the job left to do:

Did you just use the word "imperial"? Kool aid alert!

Iraq controlled by a puppet government? - unchecked.

Puppet government eh? I suppose all those Iraqis that voted were a figment of our imagiation.

Iranian competition for influence in the ME destroyed? - unchecked.

So, now the purpose of invading Iraq was to destroy Iranian influence in the region? Huh?

It's not going to happen. But by all means, do continue ruining your own contry (along with Iraq and Iran, what do I care?) trying to achieve this, if you feel like doing it. Freedom should be respected, right?

Ah...ok! We will! Thanks for the support!

 

[Mark1031]

Whatever yourself: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020gl.htm
I am writing english. Can you read it?

from Webster

civil war
Function: noun
: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.

I believe Webster is an acceptable source for english useage.

Well, your prediction was wrong. We also found roughly 1.7 tons of enriched uranium. And other items as well. But apparently thats not enough for you.

I find it hilarious how leftys accuse the USA of selling Iraq WMD which consisted of a few grams of commercial anthrax for vaccine purposes, but wont call 500+ sarin/mustard shells and 1.7 tons of enriched uranium not.

How many of those shells were in useable condition? The uranium was not weapons grade. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm. So every country with a nuclear research facility HAS WMD .

No, I dont. Iran and Iraq hadnt been at war for almost 15 years when we invaded. Now, I do think they are emboldened and most certainly feel more comfortable in their saber rattling - but in turn Iraq getting invaded didnt somehow make the Iranian military more effective or powerful.

You don't think your aggressive neighbors military getting weaker is relevant? sheesh. Did the collapse of the USSR make the US stronger or weaker because it caused us to reduce military spending.

 

[skadistic]

When your foe gets weaker it doesn't make you stronger it only make your foe weaker.

 

[El_Machinae]

You don't consider ceding Anbar to Al Qaeda to be a 'real disaster?'

'Cause I promise you, going from the backwoods of Afghanistan to the center of the Sunni Triangle is the very definition of 'trading up.'

They tried to get in during the Kuwait invasion, and were rebuffed then. Looks like the organisation got where it wanted to get.

 

[Mark1031]

When your foe gets weaker it doesn't make you stronger it only make your foe weaker.

Weaker and stronger are relative not absolute terms so your foe getting weaker does in fact make you stronger.

 

[El_Machinae]

Weaker and stronger are relative not absolute terms so your foe getting weaker does in fact make you stronger.

I think that it can go either way.
I advocate teamwork and synergy, because it increases my absolute power. But it doesn't help my relative power much.

I'd like to see my country increase in absolute power, as fast as it can. This, then, does not require tearing down other countries.

 

[MobBoss]

from Webster

civil war
Function: noun
: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.

I believe Webster is an acceptable source for english useage.

Under that definition the Hatfields and McCoys were involved in a civil war. So were the crips and bloods.

But hey, whatever makes you happy.

You don't think your aggressive neighbors military getting weaker is relevant? sheesh. Did the collapse of the USSR make the US stronger or weaker because it caused us to reduce military spending.

Relevant? Sure. Makes you stronger? No. The USSR collapsing didnt make the US miltiary stronger in any way. It was the same the day before the USSR fell and it was the same the day after it fell. Now you can say it definitely eliminated some of the competition, which is another thing entirely. But made stronger? Only innovation and budget increases does that.

 

[skadistic]

Weaker and stronger are relative not absolute terms so your foe getting weaker does in fact make you stronger.

You stay at the same level. If you have 10 guns and the dude to your left has ten as does the guy to your right and left hand guy loses 5 you don't have 15. And right hand dude doesn't see you as stronger with your still ten guns. If your going to argue and use terms like that you shoulld add the word "relitively". And you should clairify who the parties are that your relitivity applies to.

 

[innonimatu]

Puppet government eh? I suppose all those Iraqis that voted were a figment of our imagiation.

You mean those 99% of the population the current government in unable to control and dares not face without military escort? I guess they must have failed to understand democracy, or how else can they fail to respect the elected government?

So, now the purpose of invading Iraq was to destroy Iranian influence in the region? Huh?

Of course. Iraq posed no threat to the US. Iran does, it is directly challenging american influence in the ME (which is to say, influence over energy supplies on which Europe and East Asia depend). The new Iraq was supposed to be a useful base for destabilizing Iran and promoting regime change or, failing that, attack it. But total incompetence in the occupation of Iraq has prevented that, and it is Iran now benefiting from the invasion.

Btw, funny that even this report should mention the al-qaeda bogeyman. They may be only a minor actor in Iraq now, buy remain useful in the US, it seems.

 

[MobBoss]

You mean those 99% of the population the current government in unable to control and dares not face without military escort? I guess they must have failed to understand democracy, or how else can they fail to respect the elected government?

Go and find out how many people voted in the Iraqi elections and then get back to me.

Of course. Iraq posed no threat to the US. Iran does, it is directly challenging american influence in the ME (which is to say, influence over energy supplies on which Europe and East Asia depend). The new Iraq was supposed to be a useful base for destabilizing Iran and promoting regime change or, failing that, attack it. But total incompetence in the occupation of Iraq has prevented that, and it is Iran now benefiting from the invasion.

You have it all wrong. Iraq was already an anti-Iran platform under Saddam. If all we wanted was a counter to Iran, we simply had to do nothing. However, the hope is that a free Iraq would in turn lead to a more democratic attitude among all the nations in the region - not just Iran, but Syria, Saudi Arabia and others. That is indeed a worthwhile goal.