RK ARCHIVE - Webb and the Iraq Study Group Report

First, Jim Webb repeatedly said that we need to change the course Iraq and involve Iraq's neighbors in the process of stablizing Iraq. The first recommendation of the ISG is to launch a diplomatic offensive. This inlcudes working with all of Iraq's neighbors.

Second, Jim Webb said, "The eventual way out of thisGГand it can be done soon, with the right leadershipGГis for us to get something similar to what we had with the, the Madrid conference in 1991 after Gulf War I, get these countries to the table, and have them work out a formula." The ISG recommendation 14, "The purpose of these meetings would be to negotiate peace as was done at the Madrid Conference in 1991" (page 56).
Third, Jim Webb said we must work in Iran and Syria to help stabilize Iraq. Webb said in the same Meet the Press interview that we should work with Iran just as we did during the War in Afghanistan. The ISG states, "The United States and Iran cooperated in Afghanistan, and both sides should explore whether this model can be replicated in the case of Iraq" (page 52).

Fourth, Jim Webb said there should be no permanent bases built in Iraq. ISG Recommendation 22, states "The President should state that the United States does not seek permanent bases in Iraq" (page 61).

Fifth, Jim Webb said, "we need a clear statement from this administration that we have no desire for a long-term presence in Iraq." ISG recommendation 40, "The US should not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq" (page 75).

If only we had such visionary leadership in the US Senate earlier, but we need to move forward. Now there are two contradictions in the ISG that could make implementation difficult. First, the ISG reports the failure of a troop surge in Baghdad to quell the violence, earlier this year (page 11). Later on, however, they tentatively support a troop surge option (page 73).

More worrisome the ISG, layouts specific milestones to measure success on Iraq tied to specific months in 2006 and 2007 (pages 62-63). They suggest that if these milestones are not met we should cut back our support. Then the ISG reports "The point is not for the United States to set timetables or deadlines for withdrawal, an approach we oppose," (page 67). But did not the ISG just recommend a timeline approach?

Still I think that the ISG further validates the approach of Democrats in general to Iraq, and Jim Webb in particular. The most ominous problem is that it may be too late. One last question:

Comments

RE: Jim Webb's statements (JPTERP - 12/9/2006 5:13:51 PM)

I have to think that Jim Webb isn't thinking this issue through in a vacuum. I suspect he is probably talking to a number of sources inside the military--perhaps ones similar to the ISG. Even so, I was also struck by the parallels. Webb seems to be ahead of the curve on this issue as well.

ahead of the curve (TurnVirginiaBlue - 12/9/2006 5:26:02 PM)

I'm not surprised by this at all. Webb clearly has the military expertise to sit on that study group, so it doesn't surprise me that their conclusions are very similar to his recommendations earlier.

I mean, he is a military expert, in strategy and foreign policy, a leader.

For all I know they were reading what he was saying before they formed.

Bush says he'll "Decide" (Teddy - 12/9/2006 5:37:55 PM)

before New Years' Day. Admittedly, we have no time to waste, but he also wants desperately to wiggle out of this before the new Cogress comes in. Will the Decider decide on a path not requiring input from, say Webb? Danger, here.

RE: Agreed (JPTERP - 12/9/2006 8:05:03 PM)

I see a strategy that will be sold as a "new course" but that will only nominally be so (with a few elements of the ISG report thrown in for good measure).

The president's PR man Tony Snow stated that congress needs to remember that "GW is the Commander in Chief"--insinuating that the president has full authority to do whatever it is that he wants. The Constitution clearly says otherwise (the president does not have the right to declare wars, presumably congress also has the power to end wars as well). It would be a smart move for GW Bush politically to consult with the Senate leadership on this.

Jim's (Gordie - 12/9/2006 6:38:35 PM)

plan has been the closet to the ISG and most of the Democrats have said one or more of the suggestions ever since Murtha spoke up. Yes it was Jim before the war even started who was more on course then any one else.

Now comes the big test. I myself do not expect Bush to jump on board. He is too much a go it along President, along with the rest of the junkies still with him. If anyone notices Rumsfeld is still the only one gone. He was the sacrifice to try and get the D's on board. I certainly hope they (D's)are planning their next stratagy. Which, how can we force this president into our plan and not his plan, with out cutting the purse strings.

Behind closed doors it has to be impeachment. Everyone talks about his legacy. Well impeachment will kill that right away. If we see Bush following the ISG and Democrat's plan, we will know the Politicans have their heads screw on straight and are using leverage. That is the only thing that causes this President to change his mind. To be boxed into a corner.

Agree wholeheartedly (scarlatagal - 12/9/2006 7:37:50 PM)

I almost think he is doing "mak show"--i.e., meeting with various components of the government in order to demonstrate how "seriously" he considers the recommendations in the report.
I'm skeptical of any signs "the deciderator" conveys to show he is flexible. On the contrary, this guy is a stubborn jerk. Its his way or the highway. I bet he doesn't accept any of the recommendations, or at least none of the ones that show him up for the dork that he is. Not that I'm bitter or anything. Let the impeachment begin!!!!

Hopefully Webb will insure (mosquitopest - 12/9/2006 7:42:43 PM)

That any additional funding of this illegal OCCUPATION of Iraq is only done with strict strings attached to it.

The folks are sick of writing a blank check for George Bush to advance HIS private agenda (and making his family and friends rich) while we pay the bills and he buries OUR wants and needs.

I wish Bush would have to PAY for this illegal occupation himself. I doubt he'd want to stay in Iraq and invade Iran if he had to foot the bill.

Bush and his cronies have sacrificed NOTHING.

BRING OUR TROOPS HOME ASAP...That's what the voters said, that's what Jim Webb ran on....now we want to see it happen.

I'm looking forward to Jim Webb taking anyone to task who continues to ignore the people's voices.

Buzz...Buzz...

Wes Clark (summercat - 12/10/2006 9:58:29 AM)

has voiced many of these ideas as well. I did hear a comment on Washington Journal from someone who was concerned about the call for privatization of Iraq oil to American companies--any reaction to that?

I heard the same call (Catzmaw - 12/10/2006 11:59:35 AM)

Don't know exactly what the ISG says about it, but the interviewee (can't remember, maybe Ricks of the WaPo?) said that Iraqi oil has never been privatizely owned before and was disturbed that we might impose privatization upon the Iraqi system. I was listening on the radio at the time and somewhat distracted while chiding my chronically tardy teen, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Just finished listening to MTP (Catzmaw - 12/10/2006 12:36:20 PM)

I missed about half, but was in time to pick up statements from the guests. Thomas Hicks, author of Fiasco, was asked what the situation is there, and he described Baghdad as having descended into a "Hobbesian state", with 35 or 40 miles worth of neighborhoods erecting barricades and warring with each other. The prospect for incursion by foreigners if the security situation is not resolved is very high. They forecast a proxy war between Shi'a and Sunni, with jockeying by Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Unnerving stuff.

Yes (Gordie - 12/10/2006 7:28:46 PM)

as time goes by we are really learning all the lies and cover up.
I did not catch all that was said, but was it said that 100 attacks were reported, but in fact the attacks were over 1100.
That taking old cars and building fort was an eye opener. From news reports a person would not get the impression that people were protecting themselves in this manner. It certainly makes sense. I got the impression that they were setting up forts to protect themselves, not to war with others. (so to speak)

Ricks, not Hicks (teacherken - 12/10/2006 10:59:05 PM)

and isn't interesting that realistically none of them had particularly high hopes for any kind of success, but still feel obligated to kill another 1,000 or so Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis just to prove that they tried everything?

Thanks for the correction (Catzmaw - 12/10/2006 11:10:28 PM)

my hearing has gone from a little fuzzy to really sucks. Causes no end of misunderstanding with my kids, not to mention merciless teasing.

As to the willingness to put others at risk, I'd guess none of their kids is over there fighting. What a messy, messy situation.