January 12, 2007

ISG Statement on Bush's Speech

PDF statement here, with text below:

We are pleased that the president reviewed the report of the Iraq Study Group carefully and seriously. Some of our recommendations are reflected in the new approach that he outlined Wednesday, while others have not been adopted.

We agree with President Bush that, "the situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people," the consequences of failure are severe, and "only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people." As the president said, "the essential U.S. security mission" in Iraq is the training of Iraqi forces. We support increasing the number of American advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units with the goal that the Iraq government will assume control of security in all provinces in Iraq by November 2007. We recommended many of the benchmarks President Bush outlined for Iraq, and agree that now is the time for the Iraqi government to act.

We hope the president and his administration will further consider other recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. The president did not suggest the possibility of a transition that could enable U.S. combat forces to begin to leave Iraq. The president did not state that political, military or economic support for Iraq would be conditional on the Iraqi government's ability to meet benchmarks. Within the region, the president did not announce an international support group for Iraq, including all of Iraq's neighbors, nor mention measures we suggested to reach a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement.

The Iraq Study Group indicated that it could "support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad" complemented by comprehensive political, economic and diplomatic efforts. Questions, of course, remain about the nature of the surge. We are encouraged by the president's statement that "America's commitment is not open-ended" and Secretary Gates' statement that the addition of 21,000 troops would be viewed as a temporary surge. The violence in Baghdad will not end without national reconciliation.

America's political leaders have a responsibility to seek a bipartisan consensus on issues of war and peace. We want to be helpful in forging that unity of effort. We welcome President Bush's commitment to form a working group with congressional leaders that will work across party lines in pursuit of a common policy. [emphasis added]

The obvious 'damning w/ faint praise' aspect of the above aside, I guess this is really the ISG's way of saying they feel they can't really support a surge (at least as currently envisioned), as it's not persuasively being accompanied by "comprehensive political, economic and diplomatic efforts" (especially the last prong). That, in a nutshell (and also that fact that even Keane/Kagan thought a surge needed at very least 30,000 men), leaves me opposed to the surge. Too little, too late-and without even the semblance of a serious diplomatic approach regionally (another major shortcoming is that Bush's plan places far too much faith in Maliki's government). So, in the end, Bush treated the ISG like a "fruit salad", I'm afraid, and if I were one of the co-chairs or other members of the panel I'd feel very let down, to say the least.

Greg,

Let's say Bush sees the light and goes for a diplomatic offensive. Continuing the hypothetical situation, let's say you are one of his senior advisers. A meeting with the Iranians is set. What do you suggest Bush ask the Iranians to do or offer them in return?

I ask this because it's not immediately apparent to me how talking to Iraq's neighbors can stabilize Iraq -- especially when it appears they have had some hand in keeping it unstable (to be fair, our putative allies Jordan and Saudi Arabia have probably been sources of instability in Iraq as well). Could you please elaborate?

Dave

Posted by: Dave at January 13, 2007 05:42 PM | Permalink to this comment

Kevin Drum recently put the question this way:

This is a common refrain, and I'm certainly not opposed to regional diplomacy. At the same time, it's never been obvious to me that Iraq's neighbors -- primarily Iran and Saudi Arabia -- have enough influence to stop the violence in Baghdad even if they were fully committed to trying. Can anyone point me to a well-informed piece that makes the case that they do?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_01/010525.php

I scanned the first few comments and didn't find a direct answer to this.

Posted by: David Tomlin at January 13, 2007 07:03 PM | Permalink to this comment