Remember when all eyes were on the Iraq Study Group to point to the path out of Iraq? James Baker, former secretary of state and the group’s co-chairman, rightly notes in the Washington Post that “more than 100 days after the Iraq Study Group released its report, we are further than ever from a consensus” and urges leaders to take another look at the recommendations.
He concludes: “Moving forward this way, which would require compromise by both sides, would be far better than continuing a political dogfight that can only undermine U.S. foreign policy goals in Iraq and the Middle East.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- minutelady on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- minutelady on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Let immigrants run
- Phantom on Let immigrants run
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Too many exemptions
- Phantom on Too many exemptions
21 Comments
I know the Democrats are for the Iraq study group’s plan which of course means that the Republicans are against it even if they have not read it. But I have been thinking of late, just what is the plan? I mean other then a bunch of mottos “Bring Democracy to Iraq”, “defeat the terrorists” and the ever favorite “Stay the course”. How we going to do it? Billions spent, today eight more U.S. service men KIA, the electrical system in Baghdad is still on again off again not to mention the rest of Iraq.
Nathan is right, the building of new Schools and hospitals is making an impact on the people of Iraq. These thing seem to make them think we may be there for their benefit. We are doing GREAT things there, what we should have been doing since day one and not demanding they govern like we think they should.Bremer went in like he thought it was post war Germany, that he had to control them not help them.I just read another 8,000 National Guard troops are being called up after they had not been give the year guarantee of not being called back.
Here recently I am hearing more and more that the civil war should just happen, the Kurds already say it will happen, the Shiites and Sunnis are saying it will happen. The Sunni were so brutal when in control that the bad blood is just that deep. The Sunni do not like the idea of sharing the power because of reprisals. The Kurds and the Shiites will not forget their treatment at the hands of the Sunnis.Like I was told when I moved to Oklahoma : “They just don’t think like we do!”.The post from yesterday in part could be the answer, but instead of aiding the Sunni in the fight, not aid anyone in the fight.The question remains, is the plan to be a occupation force there or to help a free people.What is the current plan?
Writerdog,
When you get an answer to your questions, let me know. I’m not holding my breath on that though. ;)
Plan? There’s a plan? What is it? Does it consist of training Iraqis to police the towns only to have them blow themselves up? Does it consist of making the Iraqis a self-supported people, when each faction hates the other and is willing to kill any and all, including women and children, in order to put them and their bastardized religious beliefs in control? Does it consist of sending more American troops to a country that basically wants us gone, or, at the very least, wants us to put THEIR faction in control and then have us vacate the premises?
I’ll say it again: This war should never have happened. Witness Korea, Viet Nam and nor Iraq; does this right-wing republican led administration not know history? Does it not know you CANNOT win these types of war?
I really believe this admin understands the Muslim mind not at all. It can’t phantom the religion, can’t come to grips with the fact they were not welcomed as heroes by all Iraqis, and doesn’t care that the average Iraqi goes through his or here own version of 9/11 every day.
This crap McCain of walking the streets and feeling safe is about as bogus as it gets. He was in Viet Nam, so he should know that people used to war will clean up the bomb attacks and have their stalls open within 1 hour of the attack. It’s called survival. And that is about all the Iraqi people are doing since we invaded, in my opinion illegally, their country.
The only consensus worth anything is the countries consensus to bring our troops home.
I remember being in Danang in 1965 and being all for the war. Hurrah . . . go troops. Kill as many bad guys as you can. Wipe out communism. After serious reflection, reading and understanding why we were there. I came to the conclusion I was dead wrong: we had absolutely no business there. It was a stupid war started by Ike and finished by Nixon. Way too many years and dead soldiers in between. Iraq is no different; we need to end this nonsense as soon as possible.
Bush has already destroyed any credibility we had in the middle east long ago with his failure to understand the Muslim mind. His shoot first, ask question later, use any means possible to prove me correct attitude to drive his major flawed agenda has seen to that.
So J M, what group were you attached to? The 20th and did you get to see some of those vintage C-123s?
I was in the 366th MMS and flew some flare-kicking missions an both vintage 123’s and puffs. Scary sh*t
JM – from about 1965-1968 I went through about the same metamorphosis you did. I was influenced some by my step-brother who went over there gung-ho rah-rah and came back absolutely against it. Meeting a refugee family back east also influenced – they had fled the Diem regime.
In the case of Iraq I was against it from Day 1. I was also against our policy of SUPPORTING Saddam for so lone against the Kurds, Shiites, and Iran. During that time we even blocked UN resolutions against his use of chemicals against these groups. That was the time of the infamous picture of Saddam with Rumsfield.
As for the Baker report – it looks like Pelosi has read it and Bush has not.
Some photos of Danang here J M. I think some were after you may have left though.
http://366tfw.366th-mms.net/index3.html
Maybe they should have put a book jacket on the Baker Commission report that said “My Pet Goat” if they REALLY wanted the preznit to read it.
And anyway, he doesnt need to read it. He’s the DECIDER, dammit, and he will do what he wants, when he wants, no matter WHAT he wants.
And right now, he’s busy playing war with his neo-con buds. One simply MAY NOT interrupt his games that way with the pesky TRUTH!!!
Thanks, republican. DaNang was on-limits for most of my tour, so I got to know the city very well. Spent many days at China beach, chomping on pineapples. I tend to remember the good times, and really don’t like thinking about the war side, but this Iraq shit brings back things better left in the past.
Right you are, KSGrrl.
This is the report that Bush called “a flaming turd” because it didn’t march lockstep to Bush’s policy of stay the course off the cliff.
Baker is wrong.
Dick Morris is right:
Mhttp://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/2/172518.shtml
As much as I like to see open debate on the Iraq situation, the American people really are not interested at the end of the day. We are too worried about our sick cat, or who the father of Anna Nicole’s baby is.As this very important debate shapes up nobody is really watching. I am glad to finally see the dem’s standing up for something…..anything. Their passive/aggressive nature is to be blamed as much as the GOP running amuck.But now with a majority in the house and senate they feel compelled to begin to question the policies of the administration. Well, welcome to the party! We are so glad you could make it! Pelosi and Reid are falling into a trap set by the administration. You cannot cut off funds in the middle of a war. The political repercussions are too great. You are setting things up to be grim for dem’s in 08. You are already viewed as “weak” on national defense and now you want to fuel that fire by not funding troops in battle? How can this be the best course of action?I applaud Pelosi for her travels to Syria and others in the middle east which have been ignored by the administration. More of this is needed across the board. The “Decider” is not the only diplomat in this country. He is simply is scared that progress might be made and he will be exposed for the war monger that he is.
That’s funny Paul. Take a political hack over an experienced statesman. Typical BushBot.
Experienced statesman?
Ronald Reagan wasnt perfect, but he was one of the greatest “statemen” this country has ever had.You libs hated Reagan!
Neville Chamberlain was also considered a “stateman” — by the peace nuts of his time.
How did that work out?
And — for the record:Bush was Wrong on:
No Child Left Behind ActCampaign Finance “reform”Not vetoing any spending bills.
Other than that, I think he has done a good job.
Didn’t james Baker whom you hate serve in the Reagan administration? But you take a 2-bit hack over him.
First off Eron I have read and reread the Morris article and still do not see where it is that he said anything directly about the Iraq study groups conclusions. Now I do think he is right in that the issue could divide the Democrats on some of the issues on funding. This is becoming more a issue of public face then funding the war… Bad on both side for making this a political issue instead of a conclusion on the war!
But the best is that Bush is trying to do what should have been done in the first place.There were voices from the beginning even before the invasion that said there would be a need for more troops after the invasion was over instead of before it was started. Both within the military and State, but they were over shouted and ignored, sadly they were not the voices of the majority at the top within the cabinet level.
At the worst is that Bush is still holding onto Rumsfield plan for failure, the President at the urging of the VP. Gave Rumsfield total control of the invasion and post invasion.The only one that Rumsfield had to answer to or consult with was Bush and all information had to be routed through Rumsfield to get to the President. State, the CIA and even Rice had to talk to Rumsfield first in order to get anything done. Bush has two blessing/curses to him, one is he does value loyalty and for him it is a two way street. The other is that he is the “Decider” no I am not being sarcastic. It is that once he has made a decision he sticks to it no matter if it is right or wrong. Sadly he does not take the time to always get a overview or pay attention to differing facts. He like to hear a condensed version and go with his first impression. So when ever Rice, Powell or anyone else express frustration or concern about how things were going. Bush would tell them that they had to work with Rumsfield. Since that is whom he had decided to put in charge of Iraq.
Behind the scenes, both Cheney and Rumsfield considered Afghanistan a failure. The military should have played a major role in the post war instead of state in their opinion.The problem with post war Iraq was and still is that Rumsfield concerned himself with the invasion and gave little thought to the aftermath. Rumsfield’s thinking was that the hardest part would be the invasion and the aftermath would fall into place on its own.But even though some in the both State and the military express to him the real possibility of a insurgency. He paid no attention as he felt that they were just being “nay-Sayers” and questioning his authority.
The point being, there is no military solution short of going back to squire one and installing the recommended three hundred thousand troops that were called for in a plan for the post invasion Iraq. That the military and the State department had purposed in the beginning. That is if we continued to go it alone for the most part.
Another comment about Pelosi’s fact-finding trip to the region. Congress (especially Domocrats therein) have been properly chastised for “voting for the war” (not exactly what they did). They accepted (dis)information provided by the Executive branch without question and, based on that, voted to give the Administration authority to act. This has, of course, come back to haunt Congress.
So now, instead of blindly accepting what Bush tells them Congresspeople are going out and finding out things for themselves. Perhaps if they had done that in the first place the authorization vote might have been different.
Ben just for the record, I do not fault anyone that voted for the authorization of the use of force at the time.The President had a blank check for the most part at the time, many Democrats still remember the push whether it was sincere or not during the Clinton administration for President Clinton to do something about Saddam. I have learned that even if some of the intelligence was cherry picked by the intelligence group formed in the Defense dept by Cheney, Rumsfield and Rice. The intelligence was pointing to Saddam having WMDs. But it was for the most part intelligence that had been gathered shortly after the first Gulf war. But nothing meaningful afterwards, some was actually comical if not for what happen afterwards.One piece of evidence was photographic in what appeared to be a growing number of tanker trucks that it was assumed to be Chemical materials for weapons though the contents were assumed and not know. It was not realized till later that in fact the growing numbers of trucks were actually the same trucks but had been photographed several time by the same satellite that kept being realigned to make more passes.
We all make mistakes based on the available information at the time. Even though if we would just look one step farther we might know that it would be a mistake to commit it.
You would think these Sheehan peace nuts would know how to negotiate, instead they are fighting like cats and dogs:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/07/national/a102814D75.DTL
BenI dont hate James BakerI just think Baker is wrong.
I dont hate you either Ben, but you are even more wrong then Baker!