I’m not so sure I completely agree, although I haven’t really read the ISG report. It is my impression that it is pretty accurate in enumerating the failures and blunders of the Bush Admin in planning, selling and prosecuting the war, pretty much consigning it to failure before it started because of the false premises and the lies on which it was sold. Would have been nice if they had tried harder before the fact, but at least Scowcroft did caution against the war, maybe even Baker. I suppose out of deference to the elder Bush they didn’t pile on harder then. And I believe they do assign blame, at least implicitly, to the Cheney/Rumsfeld faction (who Bush Sr never liked) and Congress for its lack of oversight (Panetta and Hamilton’s contribution), don’t they?

The real problem is with their recommendations, because they won’t come out and say we have irretrievably lost and there is little to make the situation better except try to get the neighbors interested in avoiding total catastrophe.

And while there are many in the ME who look forward to Armageddon, not everyone does. The refugee problem is going to be huge for Syria and Jordan, maybe Iran as well, and that alone might suggest a need for some cooperation. I think that with the right approach an international conference or conferences could help.

But Bush has to be isolated and then neutered for any of this to happen. Unsatisfying as the ISG Report is, acknowledgment of failure is a necessary first step. I expect many more steps next year, once the inadquacy of Bush’s response is clear. Most unfortunately, many will die while this process unfolds.

The neocon right will never concede they were wrong, but the part of the GOP who face elections will realize they were wrong to march off the cliff with Bush and Rove, and the Chamber of Commerce GOP has already realized that Iraq and denying global warming are not good for business. The neocon right is a marginal faction who unfortunately got power because of the vacuum in Bush’s head and the connivance of Cheney and Rumsfeld, who thought they would use them. Limbaugh and his ilk will go back to being isolationists.

My bad. I got the impression that they had criticized these things by implication at least from today’s NYT editorial.

My bad. I got the impression that they had criticized these things by implication at least from today’s NYT editorial.

the criticism is implicit, rather than explicit.

The biggest blind spot in the ISG is the lack of agency…. at least where it concerns the United States. Stuff is just â€happening†in Iraq, but very little of it is explained.

It is this refusal to recognize that it is the specific nature of the Bush regime itself (rather than what â€America†has done) that makes the report so worthless. The US really has only two choices in Iraq at this point — cut and run, or regime change in the US, because as long as Bushco is running things in the White House, the world feels safer with the US military pinned down in Iraq.

The report places a great deal of emphasis on â€US interests†and â€prestige†and â€perception of US power.†But because the report was written by people who would never acknowledge, let alone consider, placing blame on the Bush regime and demanding that it step down as a pre-requisite to resolving Iraq in a way that preserves some of American’s interests, the report is usless.

The risk of Iraq becoming a â€failed state†if the US withdraws are minimal. Syria and Iran are poised to fill the power vacuum there, and would do so co-operatively because it is in their interest to do so. The ISG knows this — and are recommending talks with Syria and Iran to maintain some leverage in dtermining Iraq’s future.

The real danger of the US leaving Iraq is that once we’re gone, al Qaeda will leave as well (not merely because we’ve left, but because getting them out of Iraq in is both Syria’s and Iran’s interest.

Lots of these al Qaeda types are Saudi nationals — and the last thing the House of Saud wants is for them to return home. So, one can expect that the Saudis will continue to do what they’ve been doing for the last 15 years — paying to export the problem elsewhere.

And â€elsewhere†at this point is Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan. The Pakistani military is unwilling/unable to deal with Taliban sanctuaries in their own country—and with that being the case, with Saudi’s subsidizing the presence of al Qaeda in that region, there is a very real threat of an eventual overthrow of Mussarraf by an Islamic fundamentalist regime — and Pakistan, unlike Iran, already has the Bomb.

That is really where we find ourselves now… and why it is so vital to talk to Syria and Iran — while neither country will tolerate an al Qaeda presence in their sphere of influence, it would be far easier for them to allow al Qaeda fighters to simply â€walk out†of Iraq than to agressively challenge them.

One interesting point about who testified from the recent New Yorker â€Talk of the Town†piece about Jimmy Carter:

He said that James Baker had asked him to testify before the group, but that he had declined. “I’ve been so adamantly opposed to the war, since before it started, that there’s nothing I could really add.â€

I can’t decide if that’s unfortunate, or if it would have just given more cover to the ISG. I also wonder if there are any other antiwar voices who declined.