the Silence is Deafening...the Iraq Study Group report

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[
1. This has not been supported by Bush either, and that is clearly the point of the report if you read that section as well as the more general commentary on US diplomacy in the region.



[/ QUOTE ]

It has not been a Bush priority, with other priorities he has tended to leave Israel to her own devices. However, if YOU read the report, it even couches its recommendations in terms of "Bush's commitment to a two-state solution" in both commentary and recommendations. Hardly a repudiation of Bush's policies.

Not even a good try, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. They say that a "renewed and sustained commitment" is necessary on all fronts, including "President Bush's 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine."

They are saying what everybody who has followed US policy toward Israel remotely closely in the last five years knows: That Bush made a verbal commitment to being involved in pushing for a solution and then backed off and adopted a completely laissez-faire approach. And then they are critiquing that approach. Referencing Bush's "commitment" in this context is a nice way of saying that he dropped the ball.

Then of course they go on to offer a serious of recommendations concerning how to achieve that solution that have been opposed, at least tacitly, by the administration. Yet you still don't think its a critique?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a critique of tactics and timing, not a critique of strategy. Bush made it very clear in the 2002 policy statement that a prerequisite for meaningful discussions was a repudiation of terror and a change in Palestinian leadership. the tactics have been laissez-faire because those things havent happened, and he's had some minor distractions in the ME like Afghanistan and Iraq.

There will be a "renewed and sustained commitment" when the time is appropriate. The recommendation says "as soon as possible"...as more open ended time line than Bush's:

"The world is prepared to help, yet ultimately these steps toward statehood depend on the Palestinian people and their leaders. If they energetically take the path of reform, the rewards can come quickly. If Palestinians embrace democracy, confront corruption and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support for the creation of a provisional state of Palestine. " That puts "as soon as possible" in the hands of the Palestinians, and is the correct timeline, imo.

There is no inconsistency between the report and Bush's strategies, other than inclusion of Syria and Iran, which, under current circumstances is a mistake that I dont think GWB will make.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is just ridiculous semantics. The "as soon as possible" in the report pretty clearly means just that. They aren't putting any conditions on the "possible" part, as far as I can tell. Where is that quote from? I don't see it in the report.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[
1. This has not been supported by Bush either, and that is clearly the point of the report if you read that section as well as the more general commentary on US diplomacy in the region.



[/ QUOTE ]

It has not been a Bush priority, with other priorities he has tended to leave Israel to her own devices. However, if YOU read the report, it even couches its recommendations in terms of "Bush's commitment to a two-state solution" in both commentary and recommendations. Hardly a repudiation of Bush's policies.

Not even a good try, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. They say that a "renewed and sustained commitment" is necessary on all fronts, including "President Bush's 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine."

They are saying what everybody who has followed US policy toward Israel remotely closely in the last five years knows: That Bush made a verbal commitment to being involved in pushing for a solution and then backed off and adopted a completely laissez-faire approach. And then they are critiquing that approach. Referencing Bush's "commitment" in this context is a nice way of saying that he dropped the ball.

Then of course they go on to offer a serious of recommendations concerning how to achieve that solution that have been opposed, at least tacitly, by the administration. Yet you still don't think its a critique?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a critique of tactics and timing, not a critique of strategy. Bush made it very clear in the 2002 policy statement that a prerequisite for meaningful discussions was a repudiation of terror and a change in Palestinian leadership. the tactics have been laissez-faire because those things havent happened, and he's had some minor distractions in the ME like Afghanistan and Iraq.

There will be a "renewed and sustained commitment" when the time is appropriate. The recommendation says "as soon as possible"...as more open ended time line than Bush's:

"The world is prepared to help, yet ultimately these steps toward statehood depend on the Palestinian people and their leaders. If they energetically take the path of reform, the rewards can come quickly. If Palestinians embrace democracy, confront corruption and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support for the creation of a provisional state of Palestine. " That puts "as soon as possible" in the hands of the Palestinians, and is the correct timeline, imo.

There is no inconsistency between the report and Bush's strategies, other than inclusion of Syria and Iran, which, under current circumstances is a mistake that I dont think GWB will make.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is just ridiculous semantics. The "as soon as possible" in the report pretty clearly means just that. They aren't putting any conditions on the "possible" part, as far as I can tell. Where is that quote from? I don't see it in the report.

[/ QUOTE ]

Recommendation 14.

And even if you want to claim its just semantics, here is one thing that clearly isnt semantics. The committee has always been promoted, and has been very careful to present itself, as "bi-partisan". Yet in the recommendations on Israel they persistently use the language "President Bush's June 2002 commitment to a two-state....". If they were talking about a more general two-state solution, without the conditions GWB set in June 2002, they would have worded it very differently.

[andyfox]

I saw the co-chairs on TV last night. They were very critical of the administration. Their basic assessment is that Iraq is a mess. They believe we should set a reasonable timetable and stick to it, whether the Iraqis stand up or not. They believe we must engage Syria and Iran, not only vis-a-vis Iraq, but in general. They believe that the siuation is grave, in that we are not winning and are in danger of losing, but that there's really not much we can do about it.

The vice-president, as recently as the week before the election, said our policy should be full-speed ahead because it's working. The president, last week, said the violence in Iraq was caused by Al-Qaeda; the chairs said that while Al-Qaeda was involved, there were other, more pertinent causes of the bloodshed.

I don't see how the report can be considered anything but a rebuke of the administration's policies.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
I saw the co-chairs on TV last night. They were very critical of the administration. Their basic assessment is that Iraq is a mess. They believe we should set a reasonable timetable and stick to it, whether the Iraqis stand up or not. They believe we must engage Syria and Iran, not only vis-a-vis Iraq, but in general. They believe that the siuation is grave, in that we are not winning and are in danger of losing, but that there's really not much we can do about it.

The vice-president, as recently as the week before the election, said our policy should be full-speed ahead because it's working. The president, last week, said the violence in Iraq was caused by Al-Qaeda; the chairs said that while Al-Qaeda was involved, there were other, more pertinent causes of the bloodshed.

I don't see how the report can be considered anything but a rebuke of the administration's policies.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to be a nearly unanimous reaction and interpretation in the non-Copernicus universe.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I saw the co-chairs on TV last night. They were very critical of the administration. Their basic assessment is that Iraq is a mess. They believe we should set a reasonable timetable and stick to it, whether the Iraqis stand up or not. They believe we must engage Syria and Iran, not only vis-a-vis Iraq, but in general. They believe that the siuation is grave, in that we are not winning and are in danger of losing, but that there's really not much we can do about it.

The vice-president, as recently as the week before the election, said our policy should be full-speed ahead because it's working. The president, last week, said the violence in Iraq was caused by Al-Qaeda; the chairs said that while Al-Qaeda was involved, there were other, more pertinent causes of the bloodshed.

I don't see how the report can be considered anything but a rebuke of the administration's policies.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to be a nearly unanimous reaction and interpretation in the non-Copernicus universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I.e. the Bush sucks even when he's right universe.

[andyfox]

I was presenting the co-chairs' comments; I believe I presented them accurately, both in terms of content and tone. Their message was not that Bush sucks, but rather that he is wrong.

[adios]

I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet. Recommendation 19 is pretty lame:

RECOMMENDATION 19: The President and the leadership of his national security team should remain in close and frequent contact with the Iraqi leadership. These contacts must convey a clear message: there must be action by the Iraqi government to make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones. In public diplomacy, the President should convey as much detail as possible about the substance of these exchanges in order to keep the American people, the Iraqi people, and the countries in the region well informed.

I think it's lame because I don't think a study group needs to be commissioned to come up with something like that. I could get the same recommendation from folks at the local tavern. Here's one that we read alot from the pols:

RECOMMENDATION 28: Oil revenue sharing. Oil revenues should accrue to the central government and be shared on the basis of population. No formula that gives control overrevenues from future fields to the regions or gives control ofoil fields to the regions is compatible with national reconciliation.

Would some please enlighten me on how this can be enforced??????????????????? Would these same folks recommend that industries in the U.S.A. operate the same way?

Overall my first impression of this report is that it's extermely underwhelming in it's content and recommendations. We've been waiting 8+ months for this????

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I was presenting the co-chairs' comments; I believe I presented them accurately, both in terms of content and tone. Their message was not that Bush sucks, but rather that he is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

the cochairs comments dont reflect the overall tone of the report. thats one reason why maggie said:

"To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects. "

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet. Recommendation 19 is pretty lame:

RECOMMENDATION 19: The President and the leadership of his national security team should remain in close and frequent contact with the Iraqi leadership. These contacts must convey a clear message: there must be action by the Iraqi government to make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones. In public diplomacy, the President should convey as much detail as possible about the substance of these exchanges in order to keep the American people, the Iraqi people, and the countries in the region well informed.

I think it's lame because I don't think a study group needs to be commissioned to come up with something like that. I could get the same recommendation from folks at the local tavern. Here's one that we read alot from the pols:

RECOMMENDATION 28: Oil revenue sharing. Oil revenues should accrue to the central government and be shared on the basis of population. No formula that gives control overrevenues from future fields to the regions or gives control ofoil fields to the regions is compatible with national reconciliation.

Would some please enlighten me on how this can be enforced??????????????????? Would these same folks recommend that industries in the U.S.A. operate the same way?

Overall my first impression of this report is that it's extermely underwhelming in it's content and recommendations. We've been waiting 8+ months for this????

[/ QUOTE ]

Even the anti-Bushies here could only come up with 3 differences from GWB policies, and 2 of them were only differences if you ignore the plain language of the recommendations. That tells you the report said little, and the few specific recommendations they made are coming under attack by the same people they interviewed. (See Michael Gordon in todays NYTs e.g.)

[Poofler]

I actually agree with Copernicus, gasp. The report is a neutered rag of vague hopes and dreams. It states the obvious (things aren't good), wants that which is near impossible (the Israel/Syria/Iran business), and punts the relevant strategic issues in Iraq. They should have gathered 10 top generals to evaluate the pros/cons of several strategies, and left it to Washington to pick one. We don't need 10 policy wonks who try to reach bi-partisinism for the sake of bi-partisanism.