I’d been worried that the Iraq Study Group would come out with some version of a Last Big Push recommendation, which Bush would embrace, leaving the Democrats on the Hill to either capitulate and own the war or resist and allow the Republicans to blame them for the all-but-inevitable defeat.
Apparently not. Instead the ISG is prepared to call for a phased withdrawal accompanied by a diplomatic offensive. (Sounds a lot like the line Wesley Clark has been pushing.)
I’m not firmly against leaving some troops there for a while; as horrible as our occupation has turned out to be for Iraq, I can imagine that our withdrawal could make things worse rather than better. (Churchill once said of Lenin that the only event in Russian history more disastrous than his birth was his death.)
But even an Administration more skillful at diplomacy than this one (and could there possibly be an Administration less skillful?) would have a hard time getting anything useful out of Syria and Iran, two of the key players. We’re not holding many cards; worse than that, we’re known not to be holding many cards. And George W. Bush has spent five years convincing the rest of the world that the United States needs taking down a peg. So diplomacy might not accomplish much, in which case leaving slowly rather than quickly just incurs more casualties.
But the key point, as I see it, is that a group including Baker, Meese, Eagleburger, and Simpson is going to publicly admit (having more or less cleared it with the White House) that the course we’ve been staying is a road to nowhere. Sounds like progress to me.
It's simple, really: Bomb the cities of unrest with bags full of cash and while the greed overcomes the fanaticism and they all scramble for the gelt, load our troops up and get the hell out of there.
I've been more worried that this gives mccain a way to squirm out from responsibility.
Countries really shouldn't be in the invasion business unless they are willing to go the whole nice yards being as brutal and repressive as needed to put down the inevitable rebellion against their occupation. The US did that successfully during the Philippines Insurrection but modern democracies simply can't behave brutally enough to break the will of a foreign people and even if they did could one really claim to have "saved" anyone from oppression? Therefore they should just avoid invasions to begin with.
Headline glanced in passing: "Panel Recommends Iraq Pullout"
Wait… so you are impressed that Baker, et al "admit" that they were right all along?
"…I can imagine that our withdrawal could make things worse rather than better."
This is very likely, of course—_in the short run_.
In the long run, a very plausible case can be made that it will make no net difference (or might make things better).