Donald Sensing on the ISG report.

Bottom line: the ISG report offers some good ideas when it sticks to Iraq itself, especially the recommendation that American Military Training Teams serving with Iraqi army units be reinforced and broadened and when it opens the door to a near-term intensification of direct military by US forces against the insurgency. But it flops hard when it wanders afield, especially when it fails to recognize that Syria and Iran are vested in our failure in Iraq, not our success. The two nations are not potential partners, they are enemies.

And I like and agree with "cerebrim"'s comment:

Much like the 9/11 commission report, it's being widely praised only by people who didn't read or understand it.

Much like the 9/11 commission report, it achieved 'bipartisanship' by being self-contradictory, equivocating, and weaselly.

Much like the 9/11 commission report, its primary use seems to be a political bludgeon by various people who have no interest in actually implementing it, just decrying the people who don't.

And much like the 9/11 commission report, its recommendations are unimplementable even if you were inclined to try - and you would be insane to want to.

Also, see Cox and Forkum: Then And Now. Yes, there is no substitute for victory. Of course, it's been decades since we've had one, or allowed ourselves one.

Rad, the real problem is that there is no cohesive block of Iraqis who are on "our" side. Who do we hand power to after we win?

(I exclude the Kurds as the creation of a genuine Kurdistan is a true win for the West and Israel. I have been reading that the Israelis have been building strong ties with the Kurds, as Kurds and not as Kurdish Iraqis.)

Except for the Kurds there are:

al-Maliki and al-Hakim who have strong ties to Iran.

al-Sadr who is a nutcase Shia but is also an Iraqi nationalist and would oppose Iranian dominance

fundie Sunni (the radical Wahabi-ists)

Sunni Baath (Saddam's people)

But for the Kurds there is no "winning" as there are no Iraqis we can put in power who will be on our side after we leave.

Rand, not Rad. Sorry.

Wowsers.

Since there's not much Iraq could do if it was "on our side", having that as a goal is supremely silly.

US interests are served by an Iraq that sells oil and engages in no mischief. There are lots of ways for Iraq to be the source of no problems, some pleasant for Iraqis, others less so. Since that pleasantness or lack thereof is theirs, not ours, what say we let them decide?

Besides, if killing each other is "their way", what right do we have to say otherwise?

Yes, just exactly what the heck do we mean by "winning" in Iraq. Seems to me that many postings here reflect the fact that we:

(1) Feel very miffed that things have worked out so badly and feel let down by of all people, a Republican President.

(2) Understand that our withdrawal will be taken as an American defeat, which it will.

(3) Want to have some reason to stay there even though it will be only to baby-sit the power struggle, and even though we can't quite decide who to support since the fact that the Shia and the Sunni hate each other as much as they hate us.

(4) Confuse all of the chaos in Iraq with fighting terror.

(5) Find various rhetorical obfuscations to justify treating the patient with more of the same medicine when the patient is clearly allergic to it.

(6) Generalizing hyperbolically that if "Iraq" fails, the next step is war against the Moslems of the world with no rational basis for this deduction.

We should get out and watch where the pieces fall. Humpty is broken. Too bad we broke it. Can't be fixed now.

Well count on Rand to be exhorting others to
spend lives and treasure in Iraq, not that he will
do either.