So the November 2006 US elections delivered a clear
message to our elected leaders that we want the troops home from Iraq ASAP, right?
And the overwhelming majority of Iraqis also favor a rapid withdrawal of US troops, right?
And most of our loyal allies, including Britain, Italy, Japan, South Korea, and Spain, have either already withdrawn all their own troops from Iraq, or have announced plans to do so by the middle of next year, right?
And after having complained loudly about being "misled" into voting for the War back in Fall 2002, and having just won nearly 58 percent of the nationwide popular vote, Democrats have newfound courage, and are finally going to stand up and be counted on this issue, right? 
So we ought to start seeing the 140,000 US troops in Iraq coming home real soon now, right?
Well, not so fast, my friends....
You see, this is Democracy in America we're talking about, not some tin-horn dictatorship.....
These are complex issues, which can't just be delegated to any Tom, Dick, or Sheila on the street.
No - these issues requre careful study over many months by an enormous Bipartisan Iraq Study Group.
JUST WHAT WE NEEDED?
Such a group must be staffed by the best and the brightest people that we can possibly find......People like Alan Simpson, Ed Meese, Sandra Day O'Conor, Leon J. Panetta, and Vernon Jordan.....
They'd be aided, of course, by four other 12-person subpanels of US experts on "the economy and reconstruction," "political development," "the military and security," and the "strategic environment!"
The resultng "goat rodeo" of all these Iraqi experts has resembled nothing so much as Hillary Clinton's expert-laden Health Care reform effort back in the early 1990s. That effort also produced a grand scheme and a cornucopia of interesting ideas, few of which were ever adopted.
By the time the Iraqi Study Group returned to the surface after taking six months to analyze the (constantly-changing) situation, it boldly declared that "the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating," and that President Bush's strategy is "not working."
To that, the rest of us have been obliged to say, echoing the immortal Johnny Carson:
""Thank YOU! WE DID NOT KNOW that! "
The STUDY GROUP also produced a tightly-coupled 79-STEP PROGRAM that would merely REQUIRE...
- A sharply-expanded US training
mission -- in the face of evidence that such training may take years,
and that the first tough task will be to "train the trainers"...
- The insertion of
small groups of (relatively defenseless) US trainers inside large
units of (relatively clueless and unreliable) Iraqi forces -- a measure
that is not only dangerous, but has also been rejected as "patronizing"
by Iraqi officials
- "Hail Mary"
negotiations with Syria and Iran -- not exactly our strongest allies in
the region, and a step that the Iraqi Government may want to reserve for itself;
- Quick progress on the (until-now intractable) Israeli Palestinian issue -- with few details about how the existing Hamas/Israeli deadlock can be overcome;
- Decisive action from the (heretofore nothing-if-not-indecisive) Iraqi Prime Minister -- who is finding it risky to side too closely with the Americans;
- Amnesty for the (at least the non-al Qaeda/ more likeable) insurgents...(amnesty for Saddam was fortunately not proposed)...
- Etc. Etc.....(79)
Well then. Perhaps the poor public, the "customers" for this elaborate consulting study, may be forgiven for being a bit skeptical about how iall this could ever be implemented.
On the other hand, most of us have also long since concluded that "Bush's policy is not working." So the implication is that if the ISG's elaborate, impractical plan really is necessary for a solution, it is time to head for the exits.
WHITHER NOW?
As we might have expected, in the wake of these recommendations, the PRO-WAR RIGHT -- including the indispensable one-person-party, Senator Joe Lieberman -- has sensed blood in the water, and is attacking aggressively..
Given its
own miserable track record and diminished credibility, this may not matter very much. By now the pro-war right is taken seriously mainly by each other. This is not to
say that it can no longer make trouble -- especially on matters involving Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine, where "Fifth Columnists" are working overtime to explain away the messes they've created.
But the most interesting questions now are for Democrats -- especially those who hoped that the Iraq Study Group would save them the trouble of having to find their own solution to this nightmare.
This is also an interesting time for the still-all-too-timid anti-war movement, which clearly has a majority of the country on its side.
In principle, this movement should be in a position to demand that the new Democratic Congress keeps its promises and starts to compel US troop withdrawals early next year.
To this extent, the Study Group report is helpful, because it demonstrates that there are no free lunches here, no clever "technical fixes" or "soft landings."
The only real choice appears to be between two rather stark alternatives:
- (1) MAKING A PROLONGED commitment to keeping US troops in Iraq -- indeed, even increasing their numbers in the short run; or
- (2) WITHDRAWING with all deliberate speed, along the lines suggested months ago by Congressman John Murtha.
One might have thought that the American people had just spoken clearly on this matter in the November 2006 election, favoring the second alternative.
But of course these are complex issues, which can't just be delegated to any Tom, Dick, or Sheila on the street....!!!
*****
(c)SubmergingMarkets, 2006
Comments