The ISG: the abridged version

The ISG has been pored over by many blogs and media sources. Some have applauded it as a document that is rightly harsh on the president and gives hope to a "solution" in Iraq. Others have attacked it as just another version of cut and run (they are delusional). There are some "centrists" on both sides who see the document as a great comprehensive plan. However, there is another group of people that sees that although the ISG gets the assessment of the situation in Iraq correct, the actual plan is "stay the course" with diplomacy added. I am going to discuss this last viewpoint.

First, how far off from the original course does this new plan stray. They state that they are against "stay the course", adding more troops, and immediate withdrawal. But, what they promote is really a "stay the course" with a possible partial withdrawal sometime in the future, hopefully by 2008. But, they are against datelines and timetables which means that the plan does not say that we will be out by 2008. So, the plan is still basically what we have already. The difference is that they suggest the president practice diplomacy. Something we should have been doing the entire time.

"It's a great plan, but don't blame us if it doesn't work."
Another thing interesting about the ISG is that the contributers give themselves so many outs. Every section starts out with the disclaimer that the plan may not work. So, when the plan fails, they can tell us that they warned us that failure was a possibility. Here are some examples:

"There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq."..."No one can guarantee that any course of action in Iraq at this point will stop sectarian warfare, growing violence, or a slide toward chaos." (p.9 Letter from the Co-Chairs)

"There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved." (p.12 Executive Summary)

"There is no guarantee for success in Iraq." (p.19 Assessment)

The Aim of the Report
The contributers of the ISG made some very odd statements in the report. Most people have been led to believe that the ISG is the Bush antithesis and that the report was written with the aim to fix the mess Bush made and lead us to a workable solution in Iraq (preferably one that would be good for both the Iraqis and the Americans). But, when one reads the whole ISG report, it becomes clear that the real purpose is to begin to clean up the mess of Bush's and America's reputation and image (with or without actually helping the Iraqi people or the American troops).

The emphasis in the report seems to be to gain a concensus among the American people and get them back on board to support the Iraq war. The other emphasis is to protect "America's interests", I guess they are talking about oil here since a large portion of the ISG focuses on the oil sector. After all, it was commissioned by Bush 1 and friends. Here are some examples from the ISG that back this up:

"The global standing of the United States could suffer if Iraq descends further into chaos. Iraq is a major test of, and strain on, U.S. military, diplomatic, and financial capacities. Perceived failure there could diminish America’s credibility and influence in a region that is the center of the Islamic world and vital to the world’s energy supply." (pp.52-53)

"And [the Iraq War's] success depends on the unity of the American people in a time of political polarization. Americans can and must enjoy the right of robust debate within a democracy. Yet U.S. foreign policy is doomed to failure—as is any course of action in Iraq—if it is not supported by a broad, sustained consensus. The aim of our report is to move our country toward such a consensus." (p.10)

"If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe...The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized." (p.14)

"If [the recommendations] are effectively implemented...America’s credibility, interests, and values will be protected." (p.13)

Old Rhetoric Rehashed
The ISG is unfortunately filled with old talking points rephrased and renewed. I guess they thought they could reword the rhetoric, put it in a pretty package with a nice bow, and slip it right past the American people. I have collected a few of these talking points from the report and put them side by side with their old counter-parts. See if you can see the difference:

"While this process is under way, and to facilitate it, theUnited States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units. As these actions proceed, we could begin to move combat forces out of Iraq." (p.88)
As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.

"And [the Iraq War's] success depends on the unity of the American people in a time of political polarization. Americans can and must enjoy the right of robust debate within a democracy. Yet U.S. foreign policy is doomed to failure—as is any course of action in Iraq—if it is not supported by a broad, sustained consensus. The aim of our report is to move our country toward such a consensus." (p.10)
The opposition to the war will cause us to lose. Free speech is good but using that free speech in a time of war is dangerous and could cause us to lose.

"The United States has made a massive commitment to the future of Iraq in both blood and treasure." (p.50 Conclusions)
If we leave now, the troops that have died would have died in vain.

"The presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is a key topic of interest in a national reconciliation dialogue. The point is not for theUnited States to set timetables or deadlines for withdrawal, an approach that we oppose. The point is for the United States and Iraq to make clear their shared interest in the orderly departure of U.S. forces as Iraqi forces take on the security mission." (pp. 84-85)
No cut and run. As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.

There is more, but you get the point. Finally, another disturbing point made in the ISG report is who the ISG puts the ultimate blame on and who they say is ultimately the only one to fix the mess the American government started. They say that the reason that Iraq is a mess is because the Iraqis haven't decided to take responsibility for their own future and that until they do, Iraq will not be fixed. That is a lovely fairytale but they have to be delusional to believe that if only the Iraqis wished harder for peace and democracy that would make it so. So, in the words of the ISG, who is to blame and who has the ultimate responsibility to fix it:

"Iraqis have not been convinced that they must take responsibility for their own future." (p.50)

"The United States must adjust its role in Iraq to encourage the Iraqi people to take control of their own destiny." (p.16)

"And [the Iraq War's] success depends on the unity of the American people in a time of political polarization. Americans can and must enjoy the right of robust debate within a democracy. Yet U.S. foreign policy is doomed to failure—as is any course of action in Iraq—if it is not supported by a broad, sustained consensus. The aim of our report is to move our country toward such a consensus." (p.10)

So, the American government and the Iraqi government are off the hook. In the ISG, it comes down to the fact that the civilians on both sides are to blame because neither country's citizens have wanted success enough. Uh huh. Sure. The guys with the power and the guns haven't been able to do anything because we, the powerless citizens, aren't hoping hard enough. Now, that is a plan.

But to finish this thing up, I will leave you with a few quotes that I found the most disturbing. Enjoy:

"The Army is now considering breaking its compact with the National Guard and Reserves that limits the number of years that these citizen-soldiers can be deployed." (p.92)

"While it is clear that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is moderating the violence..." (p.92)

"First, and most importantly, the United States faces other security dangers in the world, and a continuing Iraqi commitment of American ground forces at present levels will leave no reserve available to meet other contingencies... TheUnited States should...be prepared for other security contingencies, including those in Iran and North Korea." (pp.91-92)

"Even after the United States has moved all combat brigades out of Iraq, we would maintain a considerable military presence in the region,with our still significant force in Iraq and with our powerful air,ground, and naval deployments in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar,as well as an increased presence in Afghanistan." (p.90)

"The global standing of the United States could suffer if Iraq descends further into chaos. Iraq is a major test of, and strain on, U.S. military, diplomatic, and financial capacities. Perceived failure there could diminish America’s credibility and influence in a region that is the center of the Islamic world and vital to the world’s energy supply." (pp.52-53)

And my favorite, which begs the question of why the hell are we staying in Iraq:

"There is no action the American military can take that, by itself, can bring about success in Iraq." (p.88)