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

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not the first time we've agreed, though close to it! At least you have the ability to explain and justify your positions when we disagree, unlike most of hacks here.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]


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.

[/ QUOTE ]Try to read this the other way around. The fact that we need study groupd to recommened this, means that someone is not doing something that should be elementary. Translation of Recommendation: "The administration must do the obvious. The fact that we need to spell out the obvious to the administration does not mean we are doing a redundant job; it means the administration is shortsighted."

[ QUOTE ]


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 over revenues from future fields to the regions or gives control of oil fields to the regions is compatible with national reconciliation.

Would some please enlighten me on how this can be enforced??

[/ QUOTE ]This is actually in line with keeping Iraq intact. The struggle of ethnic groups, rhetoric aside, also involves dominating as much oil revenue as possible. The Study Group recommends taking out this factor by ensuring an equitable sharing of oil wealth amongs regions. You get oil dollars even if your region doesn't have oil.

How they will do this? Through plain old central planning. (Don't say it.)

[ QUOTE ]
Would these same folks recommend that industries in the U.S.A. operate the same way?

[/ QUOTE ] No. And we can see why.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]Yeah, it's scary. The pervasiveness of ultra-patriotism has significantly corrupted the quality of public dialogue. And rendered accountability almost a meaningless term.

Mickey Brausch

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]The reason the report isn't as strong as it should/could be is precisely what you said, the need for bi-partisanship. They even came out and said so, in so many words, if we are to believe the White House press guy. They said, "Mr President, we are not here to criticize you". Which shows how far they were prepared to go.

Hell, independent study groups are supposed to be a little more bold than this! Criticize the executive branch is not supposed to be off limits! Because if they thought they'd be thanked by the president's supporters for showing "patriotism", or "bipartisanship", just look at Copernicus' reaction. It's slaps either way.

Mickey Brausch

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


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.

[/ QUOTE ]Try to read this the other way around. The fact that we need study groupd to recommened this, means that someone is not doing something that should be elementary. Translation of Recommendation: "The administration must do the obvious. The fact that we need to spell out the obvious to the administration does not mean we are doing a redundant job; it means the administration is shortsighted."

[ QUOTE ]




[/ QUOTE ]
LMAO. If you dont think that someone senior in the administration talks to al-Malaki more than once every day of the week youre even denser than I thought.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
If you dont think that someone senior in the administration talks to al-Maliki more than once every day of the week youre even denser than I thought.

[/ QUOTE ]The fact that they "talk to al-Maliki more than once every day" would only show that they "talk to al-Maliki more than once every day". Nothing more. What's quantity have to do with quality? You could be writing one politics post more than once every day and still not making any sense.

The fact is, they "talk to al-Maliki more than once every day" and still screw things up royally! As the Iraq Study Group, albeit too diplomatically, makes quite obvious.

Mickey Brausch

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you dont think that someone senior in the administration talks to al-Maliki more than once every day of the week youre even denser than I thought.

[/ QUOTE ]The fact that they "talk to al-Maliki more than once every day" would only show that they "talk to al-Maliki more than once every day". Nothing more. What's quantity have to do with quality? You could be writing one politics post more than once every day and still not making any sense.

The fact is, they "talk to al-Maliki more than once every day" and still screw things up royally! As the Iraq Study Group, albeit too diplomatically, makes quite obvious.

Mickey Brausch

[/ QUOTE ]

Which has zero to do with the recommendation, which you plainly stated was an indication that they didnt remain in constant contact. Nice try for you though.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


They "talk to al-Maliki more than once every day" and still screw things up royally!



[/ QUOTE ]

Which has zero to do with the recommendation, which you plainly stated was an indication that they didnt remain in constant contact. Nice try for you though.

[/ QUOTE ]Unfortunately for your "point", there is more to the recommendation than "talk to al-Maliki more than once every day". What it says is more than that but still elementary stuff. The fact that elementary stuff needs to be pointed out to the executive branch, by a bipartisan study group no less, only shows up the current holder of the executive for the idiocy of his policies.

Here is the recommenation, again:

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.

Mickey Brausch

[andyfox]

"the cochairs comments dont reflect the overall tone of the report."

From the report:

The opening paragraph states: "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. . . . Our most important recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces that will enable the United States to begin to move it forces out of Iraq responsibly."

In calling for new diplomatic efforts, the inference is clear that diplomacy is not currently being tried and that that is a detriment to the situation

This is a strong critique of current policy. The situation in Iraq is characterized as "grave and deteriorating."

In addition, by stating that the primary mission of our forces should change, the report is critical of its current mission and talks about moving our forces out of Iraq being capable of being done responsibly because of that change.

The report goes on to challenge a fundamental assumption of the administration, that events on the ground will determine when our forces will step down; that when the Iraqis step up, we will then, as a result, step down. The report says that "the United States must adjust its role in Iraq to encrouage the Iraqi people to take control of their own destiny": that is, a change in our policy will cause the Iraqis to step up.

The report says "the United States must not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops" in Iraq. But this is precisely the administration's position, that no timetable should be made, that we will stay there as long as necessary, that to say otherwise would be to encourage the enemy. The report calls for "redeployment," as has Jack Murtha, arguably the administration's severest critic on Iraq.

The administration and its defenders have accused the media of harping on bad news and playing down the "good news" about how well Iraq is functioning away from the violence. But the report says that "The Iraqi government is not effectively providing its people with basic services: elecricity, drinking water, sewage, health care, and education.

I didn't see any difference in the tone of the co-chairs from that of the report. I'm open to counter-arguments though.

[andyfox]

While some of the recommendations may be generic, the study group has done America a great service by putting to rest, once and for all, the lame claims of the administration that things are not so bad. The administration has accused critics of the war of putting a bad face on things, of ignoring all the good that is going on in Iraq for the sake of criticizing the president, of playing politics. The study group has made it impossible for the president to continue down the current path to disaster and to claim that things will work out with more or the same.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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 over revenues from future fields to the regions or gives control of oil fields to the regions is compatible with national reconciliation.

Would some please enlighten me on how this can be enforced??

[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually in line with keeping Iraq intact. The struggle of ethnic groups, rhetoric aside, also involves dominating as much oil revenue as possible. The Study Group recommends taking out this factor by ensuring an equitable sharing of oil wealth amongs regions. You get oil dollars even if your region doesn't have oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently you can't answewr my question either because you completely side stepped it. Who is going to enforce this equitable sharing????????

I'm leaving town for a few days and I won't be getting back to this thread until Monday most likely.