Not that he had much of a plan in the first place, but considering this report is coming from James Baker himself, a closely trusted advisor and former Secretary of State of Bush Sr., this will not be easily dismissed by the Dittoheads (of course we can never underestimate their efforts):
WASHINGTON — A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America, according to draft policy options shared with The New York Sun by commission officials.
Currently, the 10-member commission — headed by a secretary of state for President George H.W. Bush, James Baker — is considering two option papers, "Stability First" and "Redeploy and Contain," both of which rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable democracy in the near term.
More telling, however, is the ruling out of two options last month. One advocated minor fixes to the current war plan but kept intact the long-term vision of democracy in Iraq with regular elections. The second proposed that coalition forces focus their attacks only on Al Qaeda and not the wider insurgency.
Instead, the commission is headed toward presenting President Bush with two clear policy choices that contradict his rhetoric of establishing democracy in Iraq. The more palatable of the two choices for the White House, "Stability First," argues that the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad while the American Embassy should work toward political accommodation with insurgents. The goal of nurturing a democracy in Iraq is dropped.
Q, please read those last two sentences again. The nicest of these two strategies given to Bush will entail that we have to ing "accommodate with insurgents." And the whole entire goal of creating and "nurtering" a democracy is in shambles. I'm not even a Bush supporter and THAT depresses the out of me. I must admit I'm a bit surprised at the candor. I think we now have to come to terms with the obvious - one way or another the entire "dream" of a lovely democracy in Iraq is gone, at least in the short term.
quote:
The option papers, which sources inside the commission have stressed are still being amended and revised as the panel wraps up its work, give a clearer picture of what Mr. Baker meant in recent interviews when he called for a course adjustment.
They also shed light on what is at stake in the coming 2 1/2 months for the Iraqi government. The "Redeploy and Contain" option calls for the phased withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq, though the working groups have yet to say when and where those troops will go. The document, read over the telephone to the Sun, says America should "make clear to allies and others that U.S. redeployment does not reduce determination to attack terrorists wherever they are." It also says America's top priority should be minimizing American casualties in Iraq.
Hmmm, sounds eerily familiar to that silly Murtha's plan that he drew up some months ago, doesn't it? Maybe, just maybe Murtha who has a pretty good ear for the voices in the Pentagon wasn't too nutty and unAmerican after all? And what's worse, Murtha's plan actually has a location of where the troops could go (the borders), whereas this report does not.
That crazy unpatriotic Dem!
quote:
Both Mr. Baker and his Democratic co-commissioner, Lee Hamilton, have said for nearly a month that the coming weeks and months are crucial for the elected body in Baghdad. More recently, Mr. Baker has said he is leaning against counseling the president to withdraw from Iraq.
In all fairness, that last sentence should not be overlooked.
quote:
Mr. Bush yesterday spoke approvingly of his father's old campaign manager and top diplomat, saying he looked forward to seeing "what Jimmy Baker and Lee Hamilton have to say about getting the job done."
The president also said he was not averse to changing tactics. But he repeated that the strategic goal in Iraq is to build "a country which can defend itself, sustain itself, and govern itself." He added, "The strategic goal is to help this young democracy succeed in a world in which extremists are trying to intimidate rational people in order to topple moderate governments and to extend the caliphate."
Of course that has been the strategic goal all along. The "how the do we get there?" part of the goal, however, has always been a teensy bit murky and ever-so-slightly unorganized.
quote:
But the president's strategic goal is at odds with the opinion of Mr. Baker's expert working groups, which dismiss the notion of victory in Iraq. The "Stability First" paper says, "The United States should aim for stability particularly in Baghdad and political accommodation in Iraq rather than victory."
Mr. Baker in recent days has subtly been sounding out this theme with interviewers. On PBS's "Charlie Rose Show," Mr. Baker was careful to say he believed the jury was still out on whether Iraq was a success or a failure. But he also hastened to distinguish between a Middle East that was "democratic" and one that was merely "representative."
"If we are able to promote representative, representative government, not necessarily democracy, in a number of nations in the Middle East and bring more freedom to the people of that part of the world, it will have been a success," he said.
That distinction is crucial, according to one member of the expert working groups. "Baker wants to believe that Sunni dictators in Sunni majority states are representative," the group member, who requested anonymity, said.
Both option papers would compel America to open dialogue with Syria and Iran, two rogue states that Iraqi leaders and American military commanders say are providing arms and funds to Iraq's insurgents. "Stabilizing Iraq will be impossible without greater cooperation from Iran and Syria," the "Stability First" paper says.
The option also calls on America to solicit aid and support from the European Union and the United Nations, though both bodies in the past have spurned requests for significant aid for Iraq.
Because of the politically explosive topic of the Baker commission, the panel has agreed not to release its findings until after the November 7 elections. The commission, formally known as the Iraq Study Group, was created by Congress in legislation sponsored by Rep. Frank Wolf, a Republican of Virginia and close confidant of Mr. Bush's. Mr. Baker has said he will likely present the panel's findings in December.
Well whadya know, Baker is still a GOP party-first kinda guy after all. How nice and quaint of him to wait until AFTER the elections to relase this document! Not that we have a few thousand people dying from here until that time or anything. I'm sure their families will thank him, Bush, and the rest of the GOP to WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE ING ELECTION TO RELEASE THIS REPORT SO PUBLIC DIALOGUE AND LIKELY OUTRAGE CAN BE OPEN UP.
Bye bye Iraq. It was fun while it lasted. Sorry about all those citizens who's guts and body parts are all over the sandy desert. Hey, Middle East, if there's any other countries you need to stir up a little chaos and mass murder, give us a ring. We got guns, planes, lotsa bombs, helicopter thingies, missiles, lotsa lotsa ammo, and ing civilian idiots in charge of our military that'll make all of our toys go off at once. Just watch your fingers and toes when you light the fuse.......
Shakka
Call me crazy, but I thought Dubya himself addressed Baker's criticisms in his marathon news conference last Wednesday?:conf:
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Call me crazy, but I thought Dubya himself addressed Baker's criticisms in his marathon news conference last Wednesday?:conf:
You're crazy.:D
The only part I thought he addressed was that he was "open" to suggestions and was not adverse to changing tactics. But then he followed up that statement with saying what he has always said about Iraq - democracy, democracy, etc. etc. IOW, he really didn't show much openness at all. I don't have his conference in front of me, so if there were other parts that I missed you're welcome to post them.
occrider
You knew the report was going to be damning for this administration when you heard that its release was going to be delayed until after the election to avoid political fallout. It's a no brainer that the "stay the course" strategy is not working at this point, and it's even more infuriating that the administration has read the Baker commission reports and knows that but is unwilling to do anything about it because that would signal failed policy right before the election. It's getting to be pretty bad when even Foxnews says it's retarded:
The top British army general is starting to call for a withdrawal within a year and claims that democracy in Iraq will be unattainable:
quote:
Military lines up to back general on Iraq
JAMES KIRKUP
FROM the squaddies on the front line to the retired generals in their armchairs, the British military yesterday united in support of General Sir Richard Dannatt, the British Army chief, and his devastating analysis of the government's defence and foreign policies.
Gen Dannatt, the Chief of General Staff, has rocked Downing Street by publicly warning that unless Britain begins a major withdrawal from Iraq within the year, the overstretched British Army could end up "broken".
He also openly questioned whether it was still feasible to turn Iraq into a functioning democracy.
Both suggestions run directly contrary to repeated assurances by the government that the military is not overstretched and that Iraq remains on the path to peace and prosperity.
For an officer of Gen Dannatt's seniority to say such things in public is remarkable. But more remarkable still, his position and the unquestioned support of his men last night effectively forced Tony Blair to endorse the general's remarks.
"I agree with every word," the Prime Minister said, at the end of a day of intensive spin and attempted damage- control in the media.
Gen Dannatt stirred up a political storm with a newspaper interview published yesterday morning, in which he said that Britain should start withdrawing from Iraq "soon", and questioning the ambition of a democratic Iraq.
The immediate attention the interview attracted forced the government on to the defensive, with Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, putting pressure on Gen Dannatt to clarify his remarks in a round of early-morning broadcast interviews.
Gen Dannatt duly appeared to insist that he was not at odds with the government on withdrawal, but still spoke in uncompromising terms about the threat to Britain's military capabilities.
"I have got an army to look after ... I want an army in five years' time and ten years' time. Don't let's break it on this one. Let's keep an eye on time," he said. "Time is money and time is soldiers' lives."
As for making Iraq into a democratic "exemplar" for the Middle East, he again said it was better to aim for a less ambitious target - holding Iraq together as a "unitary state". But even that was only "possible", he said.
Retired officers yesterday queued up to endorse Gen Dannatt's remarks. Serving officers and soldiers, who are forbidden to speak openly to the media, used internet message sites to support their commander.
Last night, a straw poll on the Army Rumour Service website showed that 79 per cent of respondents thought the general was "absolutely right". None completely disagreed.
However, some politicians and officers questioned the constitutional propriety of a military chief apparently getting involved in politics.
But the force of Gen Dannatt's argument and its obvious resonance in the armed forces and with some segments of public opinion left the Prime Minister with no option but to agree. Mr Blair's endorsement of Gen Dannatt's remarks will only fuel the suspicion in some military circles that the army chief was playing a very canny game indeed, and actually trying to be helpful to the government.
Although the US army has said it is preparing to stay in Iraq until 2010, some senior British figures - including, it is rumoured, Gordon Brown, the Chancellor - are keen for a major UK withdrawal to begin next year, not least to free up troops for Afghanistan.
Indeed, the British Army only a week ago launched Operation Sinbad, a major "clean-up" of Basra aimed at preparing the southern city in order to hand it over to Iraqi forces in the spring.
Brigadier Ian Gardiner, a former Royal Marine, suggested there could have been some collusion with government. "We can speculate as to why and one possibility is that it was trailing a change of policy for the future. It is not impossible that it is part of an orchestrated campaign by government," Brig Gardiner said. "He would have known what he was doing. He's certainly not a fool or a loose cannon."
One defence source pointed out that the United Nations Security Council resolution that authorises the international troop presence in Iraq expires at the end of December, and suggested that Gen Dannatt's remarks could help create a "fall-back plan" of a swift withdrawal should the resolution not be renewed.
But while ministers may be happy with suggestions that British troops will be leaving Iraq sooner rather than later, they will undoubtedly be uncomfortable with Gen Dannatt's broader observations about government policy.
As for the general, army officers expect him to continue what some see as a mission to ensure the government takes better care of the armed forces. He voiced no word of apology for his remarks yesterday, and even one of his "clarifications" about Iraq could also be read as a warning to ministers who hope he will stay quiet in future: "I'm a soldier - we don't do surrender."
Words of wisdom?
On the timing of Britain's eventual withdrawal from Iraq, General Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of the General Staff, yesterday morning made clear it should start within a year:
"We don't want to be there another two, three, four, five years. We've got to think about this in terms of a reasonable length of time."
• He also stood by his suggestion the presence of British troops in Iraq can be the cause of violence:
"The point that I'm trying to make is the mere fact that we are still in some places exacerbates violence from those who want to destabilise Iraqi democracy."
• On the broad strategy for Iraq, he said: "The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro-West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East. That was the hope.
"Whether that was a sensible or naive hope, history will judge. I don't think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition."
• Gen Dannatt, a committed Christian, used his newspaper interview to question trends in British civilian society:
"When I see the Islamist threat, I hope it doesn't make undue progress because there is a moral and spiritual vacuum in this country."
• Was he withdrawing his remarks?
"I've made some forthright comments, which I stand by."
Is the General right to speak out?
"We are approaching a situation of almost impossible overstretch. I suspect he is saying publicly what he and others have been saying in private for some time"
Brigadier Allan Alstead, former commanding officer of the King's Own Scottish Borderers
"Even the dogs in the street are acknowledging he is right. He is not the sort of guy who shoots from the hip - he has a reputation as an honest man and will have thought this through"
Major Charles Heyman, Jane's World Armies specialist
"A refreshing and very honest insight into what the army generally feel"
Colonel Tim Collins, a commander in Iraq in 2003
"AT LAST!!! After years and years, AT LAST someone at the top has had the b***s to stand up and be counted"
Anonymous soldier, on Army Rumour Service website
"Thank God we have Dannatt"
Anonymous soldier, on Army Rumour Service website
"I agree with every word of it. What he is saying about wanting the British forces out of Iraq is precisely the same as we're all saying"
Tony Blair
"Most of us are sick to death of the weasel words of the various politicians, and it is quite refreshing to hear someone in a position of strong influence speaking his mind"
Anonymous soldier, on Army Rumour Service website
"Sir Richard Dannatt is saying what the vast majority of the military know. He is a very honest and decent man and is only speaking the truth of the matter"
Colonel Bob Stewart, former British UN commander in Bosnia
Related topics
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1520842006
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Q, please read those last two sentences again.
why should i give a damn what the NY Sun thinks about something like this? [/QUOTE]
venomX
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
why should i give a damn what the NY Sun thinks about something like this?
[/QUOTE]
Why dont you talk about the ideas instead of trying to go after the source because its not a big newspaper? Oh right, you really dont have anything credible to say.
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by venomX
Why dont you talk about the ideas instead of trying to go after the source because its not a big newspaper? Oh right, you really dont have anything credible to say.
That pretty much covered my thoughts too. What's with the ad hominem? The source is the freakin' Baker Commission report itself. Are you going to tell me that the Sun somehow biased the report and what it will reveal? Shall we have a little beer wager on that one? Of course we won't know until AFTER the election for certain, but I really thought you might have something more insightful than that to say.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by venomX
Why dont you talk about the ideas instead of trying to go after the source because its not a big newspaper?
because thats what we do here.
what? i'm the only person that attacks the "source" here?
what planet are you on?
i really don't care what the Sun has to say about this because it's leaked, third hand conjecture. nothing against the Sun. had the NYT or WashTimes or WaPo did the same i would react similarly. that shouldn't be any suprise to anyone. you obviously.
quote:
Oh right, you really dont have anything credible to say.
no, i don't.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
The source is the freakin' Baker Commission report itself. Are you going to tell me that the Sun somehow biased the report and what it will reveal? Shall we have a little beer wager on that one? Of course we won't know until AFTER the election for certain, but I really thought you might have something more insightful than that to say.
"scaling down" and pulling back over the horizon, whether its in Kuwait or Okinawa ffs, is not some enlightened epiphany only had by some carreer congressman. that strategy would be a part of any invasion. the question is when.
my bet is after the elections. i know it's a long shot, but frankly if it were to have happened before the elections then you cynical s (<--ad hominem) would have cried foul anyway...
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
because thats what we do here.
what? i'm the only person that attacks the "source" here?
what planet are you on?
i really don't care what the Sun has to say about this because it's leaked, third hand conjecture. nothing against the Sun. had the NYT or WashTimes or WaPo did the same i would react similarly. that shouldn't be any suprise to anyone. you obviously.
So I want to make sure I get your story straight so I understand you completely. You are not going to comment on this damning report because you feel it is "third hand conjecture" because it was leaked (of course I would NEVER accuse any GOPer of spreading leaked info. in the same regard, of course). If that is the case, alright then. I will keep this thread in mind AFTER the elections when the report comes out. When that occurs and the information comes forth in full, shall I expect to hear from you then?
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
"scaling down" and pulling back over the horizon, whether its in Kuwait or Okinawa ffs, is not some enlightened epiphany only had by some carreer congressman. that strategy would be a part of any invasion. the question is when.
So I see you are beginning to concede Baker's option #2 and Murtha's plan of redeployment after all.
And what a second, did you just say this was a strategy that was part of the invasion? Can you please tell me seriously what part of the POST-invasion that has gone successfully to Bush's strategery here? And really now, if any of this was his grand master plan, I would hate to see how things would have gone NOT in accordance to plan. Because that would really be a ing nightmare, wouldn't it? Boy I'm sure glad to see such a master plan of Iraq breaking off into 3 factions, civil war breaking out, 60-80 deaths a day occurring, a Shiite Islamic government in leagues with Iran all come to fruition.
quote:
my bet is after the elections. i know it's a long shot, but frankly if it were to have happened before the elections then you cynical s (<--ad hominem) would have cried foul anyway...
How Do You Ask a Man to Be the Last Man to Die in Iraq? Cynicism on this issue is waiting for ing political cover while more soldiers and innocent lives die on our watch. Cynicism is waiting until our elections are over before making a ing move. Let's seriously switch roles for a moment and pretend that a Democrat was in office - would you not think for one moment that the large majority of people, Democrat and Republican alike, would find it absolutely disgusting to see our Democratic President wait to pull out our troops until AFTER the election so he could somehow save face? I employ you to watch Occ's post of Kristol's interview again. It's more than telling.
OurManFlint
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I think we now have to come to terms with the obvious - one way or another the entire "dream" of a lovely democracy in Iraq is gone, at least in the short term.
But let's be honest now. Does anybody really think a plan for democracy in Iraq is realistic. Was the "dream" to go in their, destroy the current regime, stabalize the country, and spread democracy in a religious nation that at no time in their history have ever practiced a democratic anything. First of all, if this woulb be a dream, it would have to be a slow and patient dream because the country has such a deep history and understanding of things that are not democratic, that changing any kind of way of life for them would actually take generations. It was foolish to think it could be done within even 10 or 20 years.
Second, can you spread democracy through the barrel of a gun? I know the situation is very dynamic and almost two complex for these points both politically and even more so socially, but these are just a few concerns that I have with the plan to spread democracy in Iraq.
