- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
From the Trade Paperback edition.
From the Trade Paperback edition.
A. Assessment of the Current Situation in Iraq
B. Consequences of Continued Decline in Iraq
C. Some Alterrnative Courses in Iraq
D. Achieving Our Goals
II. THE WAY FORWARD—A NEW APPROACH
A. The External Approach: Building an International Consensus
B. The Internal Approach: Helping Iraqis Help Themselves
Posted June 8, 2007
It is misguided to turn to the Iraq Study Group Report. It has been widely discredited for good reason most particularly because its ideas have failed in the past, and/or its assumptions are fallacious. The failed policies of the past to which they hearken, in fact provided neither stability nor peace. One example is the Iraq Study Group¿s proposal that we should negotiate with Iran and/or Syria. To put it in perspective, ask the analogous question: should we negotiate with bin Laden or the Taliban? Should we have negotiated with Hitler? The answer is the same for all of these cases, no. After our enemies cease attacking us, directly or indirectly, or concede defeat, we can talk to them. Iran and Syria have had myriad opportunities in the last several years, including Iran with the EU-3, to indicate any interest in promoting stability in the region. Indeed, their actions have demonstrated precisely the opposite. Don't waste your time [and a little bit of money].Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted February 15, 2007
This Report by a bipartisan commission of Republicans and Democrats proposes a course of action ¿that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly.¿ They urge, ¿If the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military or economic support for the Iraqi government.¿ But they reject immediate and unconditional withdrawal which they call `premature¿ and `precipitate¿, even though the US occupation of Iraq is the cause of all Iraq¿s present problems, and nothing can be settled until the occupying forces leave. In part, their `new approach¿ proposes what the US has, ostensibly, been trying and failing to achieve. They demand that the Iraqi government achieve national reconciliation, reduce violence and improve people¿s daily lives. They urge the US to build an international and regional consensus and launch a `New Diplomatic Offensive¿. This includes a demand to `Stop destabilizing interventions and actions by Iraq¿s neighbors¿ - as if the US invasion and occupation were not by far the most destabilising interventions of all. They praise Britain, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Turkey, Egypt and Jordan as good allies, the last two for providing `important cooperation on intelligence¿. This intelligence, as is widely known, is gained by torture and is therefore totally unreliable. What good company we keep. More sensibly, they call for a ¿renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush¿s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.¿ They urge the US to engage Iran and Syria constructively. But then they undermine this proposal by denouncing Iran and Syria as `playing a counterproductive role¿ (unlike the US!) and by demanding that Iran and Syria do what the US wants, with no concessions by the US. They say that Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt ¿may take active steps to limit Iran¿s influence, steps that could lead an intraregional conflict¿, but they give no warning against such `steps¿. This is dangerously close to giving Israel a green light to attack Iran. As a whole, they propose a limited, compromised and conditional approach to preventing a worse and wider war. This is only a little bit better than the Bush-Blair approach, but in that little bit there could be room for a peaceful resolution. So of course the US government has rejected this Report and Bush has chosen to escalate not negotiate. The Labour government backs everything that Bush does, and we let them do so.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted December 17, 2006
As a tax payer the government should provide this report free to any one who wants it and that includes shipping.After all we are also paying for the war!Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted January 10, 2007
This is a set of 79 recommendations on how to get us out of the mess in Iraq. The question is not are the recommednations good but rather will the president listen to anyone else whom was more qualified militarily (generals) and politically (ex presidents - Clinton, Carter, his Father, even Nixon books - he ended Vietnam with Honor ie - we lost) in his decision making tasks without replacing them when he does not like what they say. This president unfortunately makes bad decisions and then defends them as morally correct when causing death and destruction are never right (in my view). As you read this book you will get a sense that many good people have great ideas on making changes needed to Democartize Iraq and the middle east. You will not be able to predict how GW Bush will react to the advice. Jesus was the only person alive who did not take advice and never made a mistake Mr. President and look what happened to him. Are you willing to be like Jesus and get crucified politically? You said you were peaceful like him in your campaign and i believed you. I do NOT anymore.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.