Preliminary Analysis
Andrew McCarthy takes a preliminary look at the report of the Iraq Study Group and is really not all that impressed. In fact he labels the entire product, "depressing". There are a lot of platitudes and "shoulds" in the report. While some of these sound great, there is really no plan to actually implement the "shoulds".
According to the ISG, the way forward for the U.S. is not to fight Iran and Syria. It is to negotiate with them. (Side-note: Although ISG executive summary does not portray Iran’s actions in Iraq as acts of war against the United States, it does acknowledge that Iran is responsible for “the flow of arms and training to Iraq,” which, as noted below, the ISG hopes Iraq will “stem.”) Iran and Syria, the ISG suggests, could be persuaded to help us in Iraq because, notwithstanding that they have assiduously destabilized the situation for three years running, they are profoundly interested in having a stable Iraq. “No country in the region,” the ISG believes, “will benefit in the long term from a chaotic Iraq.” Even if we assume for argument’s sake that this is so, the actions of Iran and Syria certainly demonstrate that they believe they will benefit in the long term from an Iraq that is chaotic for at least a while.
The ISG says: “Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation…. Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents and terrorists in and out of Iraq.” The ISG does not appear to proffer what concessions it believes the United States should make in order to get Iran and Syria to take these helpful actions.
Implicitly, though, it seems the concessions the ISG has in mind should be made by … Israel. Despite the fact that our primary enemy in the region, radical Islam, is animated by an ideology (which does not appear to be addressed by the ISG) that provides reasons aplenty, having nothing to do with the Israeli/Palestinian dispute, for opposing the United States, the ISG takes this opportunity to declare: “The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability.”
Thus, we are told, the U.S. must push for “a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria and President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.” This can only be done by negotiating with Syria, Lebanon, and those Palestinians who accept Israel’s right to exist.
The ISG does not appear to mention that it is dubious Syria accepts Israel’s right to exist, nor that a defining purpose of the Hezbollah faction dominating today’s Lebanon is to destroy Israel.
There are a lot of people combing through that report right now trying to read the tea leaves. But it does not look at all promising at the moment. Coupled with rumors floating around that Baker wants Israel excluded from any regional conference, this "plan" may be more of a disaster than it looks already.
Others (Obvious hot topic today): Outside The Beltway, The Moderate Voice, The Sundries Shack, Riehl World View, The Strata-Sphere, MK Ham, The Glittering Eye, Blogs of War, Security Watchtower, Jules Crittenden, Just One Minute, A Blog For All, Little Green Footballs, Don Surber, QandO, PrairiePundit, TigerHawk, The Belmont Club, Right Wing Nut House, Political Pit Bull, Confederate Yankee, Democracy Project, Captain's Quarters – Ed is really not impressed and reminds everyone that Baker is no friend to Israel. Heck, in my opinion, Baker is a sworn enemy of that state. It shows in the report.
Other Links to this Post
-
Wake up America — December 7, 2006 @ 9:57 am
-
Planck's Constant — December 7, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
-
Leaning Straight Up — December 8, 2006 @ 12:40 am
