Two Years Ago Today on GINA COBB: Iraq Study Group Dismisses Military Options to Win Iraq War -- in One Short Paragraph

Originally published on December 6, 2006:  Iraq Study Group Dismisses Military Options to Win Iraq War -- in One Short Paragraph

I cannot believe it!  The alternative of increasing our military commitment in order to win the Iraq war decisively receives a grand total of one paragraph of attention in the Iraq Study Group's report.  And here is the full text of that one paragraph:

Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation.  A senior American general told us that adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area.  However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area.  As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, “all the troops in the world will not provide security.”  Meanwhile, America’s military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world.

This is the best the Iraq Study Group could come up with?  As a college term paper, this would be pathetic.  On this key point, there is not even a single source quoted on the record.

If we are going to allow our national policy to rise or fall on rejection of policy options that have received a few sentences of off-the-cuff consideration, we are in deeper trouble than I thought.

Not even discussed, as far as I can see, is the alternative of adding more military weaponry and might -- not just "troops" -- to the equation.  This is the one thing we haven't really tried, as John Podhoretz pointed out yesterday in the New York Post.

What does it mean to say that no military solution will work unless Iraq finds "national reconcilliation" and has "political progress?"  Iraq's problem is not lack of political progress -- it set up a government and elected representatives in a fair and open elections.  Iraq's problem is that it is been attacked violently by terrorists who could not care less what the elections achieved.  Iraq is being undermined not by lack of dialogue, but with IEDs and car bombs and rifles and swords.  That is a terrorism problem and a military problem, and it has to be solved militarily.  If America, with all of its massive military resources can't solve that military problem, how does it expect Iraq to do so by itself?

The single paragraph of the Iraq Study Group report that rejects the military option boils down to this:  We have not yet committed enough resources to winning the Iraq war and to defending ourselves in general.  That is why we are "stretched thin."  That is why if we win in one place we can't prevent a resurgence in another.  We have committed a lot or money and resources -- yes, we have -- but we have not committed what it takes to win.

It's as if the Iraq Study Group approached its task with the notion that all military options are off the table.  The only logical option then, is to cut and run -- slowly, accompanied by a lot of empty talk with thugs and tyrants in the region, including the literally murderous regimes in Iran and Syria, to make ourselves feel better about our surrender.

If you need a reminder of why America must win, read the latest from Iran's madman president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (via Little Green Footballs):

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has warned Western leaders to follow the path of God [ed. Allah] or “vanish from the face of the earth”.

“These oppressive countries are angry with us ... a nation that on the other side of the globe has risen up and proved the shallowness of their power,” Ahmadinejad said in a speech in the northern town of Ramsar, the semi-official news agency Mehr reported Wednesday.

“They are angry with our nation. But we tell them ‘so be it and die from this anger’. Rest assured that if you do not respond to the divine call, you will die soon and vanish from the face of the earth,” he said.

The outspoken president also maintained Iran’s defiance over its controversial nuclear programme, saying it was on course to fully master nuclear technology.

“Thank to God’s help, we have gone all the way and are only one step away from the zenith. We hope to have the big nuclear celebration by the end of the year (March 2007),” Ahmadinejad said, echoing comments he has made on numerous occasions in recent months.

On further reflection, here is the actual Iraq Study Group report, boiled down to its essence:

Ace of Spades has more reaction (language warning) ("Baker Group: We Must Give More To Iran In Return For Its Complete Defeat Of US").  Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters analyzes the ISG report in more detail -- and finds it sorely lacking -- here ("It's Still Bad, Especially for Israel") and here ("These Are the Realists?")

I cannot believe it!  The alternative of increasing our military commitment in order to win the Iraq war decisively receives a grand total of one paragraph of attention in the Iraq Study Group's report.  And here is the full text of that one paragraph:

Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation.  A senior American general told us that adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area.  However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area.  As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, “all the troops in the world will not provide security.”  Meanwhile, America’s military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world.

This is the best the Iraq Study Group could come up with?  As a college term paper, this would be pathetic.  On this key point, there is not even a single source quoted on the record.

If we are going to allow our national policy to rise or fall on rejection of policy options that have received a few sentences of off-the-cuff consideration, we are in deeper trouble than I thought.

Not even discussed, as far as I can see, is the alternative of adding more military weaponry and might -- not just "troops" -- to the equation.  This is the one thing we haven't really tried, as John Podhoretz pointed out yesterday in the New York Post.

What does it mean to say that no military solution will work unless Iraq finds "national reconcilliation" and has "political progress?"  Iraq's problem is not lack of political progress -- it set up a government and elected representatives in a fair and open elections.  Iraq's problem is that it is been attacked violently by terrorists who could not care less what the elections achieved.  Iraq is being undermined not by lack of dialogue, but with IEDs and car bombs and rifles and swords.  That is a terrorism problem and a military problem, and it has to be solved militarily.  If America, with all of its massive military resources can't solve that military problem, how does it expect Iraq to do so by itself?

The single paragraph of the Iraq Study Group report that rejects the military option boils down to this:  We have not yet committed enough resources to winning the Iraq war and to defending ourselves in general.  That is why we are "stretched thin."  That is why if we win in one place we can't prevent a resurgence in another.  We have committed a lot or money and resources -- yes, we have -- but we have not committed what it takes to win.

It's as if the Iraq Study Group approached its task with the notion that all military options are off the table.  The only logical option then, is to cut and run -- slowly, accompanied by a lot of empty talk with thugs and tyrants in the region, including the literally murderous regimes in Iran and Syria, to make ourselves feel better about our surrender.

If you need a reminder of why America must win, read the latest from Iran's madman president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (via Little Green Footballs):

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has warned Western leaders to follow the path of God [ed. Allah] or “vanish from the face of the earth”.

“These oppressive countries are angry with us ... a nation that on the other side of the globe has risen up and proved the shallowness of their power,” Ahmadinejad said in a speech in the northern town of Ramsar, the semi-official news agency Mehr reported Wednesday.

“They are angry with our nation. But we tell them ‘so be it and die from this anger’. Rest assured that if you do not respond to the divine call, you will die soon and vanish from the face of the earth,” he said.

The outspoken president also maintained Iran’s defiance over its controversial nuclear programme, saying it was on course to fully master nuclear technology.

“Thank to God’s help, we have gone all the way and are only one step away from the zenith. We hope to have the big nuclear celebration by the end of the year (March 2007),” Ahmadinejad said, echoing comments he has made on numerous occasions in recent months.

On further reflection, here is the actual Iraq Study Group report, boiled down to its essence:

Ace of Spades has more reaction (language warning) ("Baker Group: We Must Give More To Iran In Return For Its Complete Defeat Of US").  Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters analyzes the ISG report in more detail -- and finds it sorely lacking -- here ("It's Still Bad, Especially for Israel") and here ("These Are the Realists?")

Comments

[DemocracyRules]

Gina –
Thank you for re-posting this article! It contains so much useful information about how Washington and the MSM work. The criticisms you wrote in 2006 were so very spot on. It’s truly amazing how fabulously wrong those people were.

I remember when the Iraq Study Group was appointed, I could see it was full of partisan hacks who, (1) lacked the skills and knowledge necessary to make an expert appraisal of the situation, (2) were so politically biased that it was obvious they would opt for “de-escalation” or surrender, (3) the MSM would trumpet the findings everywhere because socialists don’t want the US to win; not at any thing, and not anywhere, (4) Bush had to put up with these fools and their opinions in order to be conciliatory and bipartisan.

To win the Iraq war, Bush had to be brave, self-assured, and determined enough to completely ignore these recommendations and do the opposite. Because he was brave and determined, and right, he won the war. Not the Democrats, not this foolish committee, and not the MSM. Bush won the Iraq war, because he did the right thing.

These “experts” are still lining up to be on TV, but none are explaining their bad advice on Iraq. Following their advice would have been disastrous for the war on terror. How partisan, how pro-surrender those people were. But no matter how much damage they almost perpetrated on America, they will not retract a single sentence of that bad advice.

The MSM, of course, still holds those people in high regard as “pundits” and “thought leaders”, and they are welcomed back to comment on political minutiae. These days they opine such gems as, “Oh, yes, Obama will do just fine. All this talk about a coup d’etat is nonsense. I should know, because I’m in on it.”

Your article is the best evidence I’ve ever seen about dangerous "experts" can be. To be credible, true experts must: (1) be reasonably bright and articulate, (2) have a history of being objective, (3) have a history of being right, (4) be a patriot who wants America to do well and succeed, (5) know a lot,and (6)admit it later when they make a huge mistake.

As it was, those “experts” were worse than useless. They were dangerous.

Pro Patria