GW has said "if you have an alternative plan, I would like to hear it"- of course- that is a straight up lie- there is an alternative plan, one he hasn't even considered, yet HAS heard about it- the ISG plan, formed by experts in a bi-partisan fashion, without a doubt the best plan I have seen so far-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISG_Report

Including allowed published links by the copyrighted sources.

The ISG report is basically broken down into three seperate "chapters" or "focus" if you will

1) Military
2) Diplomatic
3) Economic

with a minor fourth:

4) Under reporting of violence.

I would rather not focus on Gws plan, as it is already being discussed. So, simple question in response to the 'will the surge work" thread-

Given the four different aspects of the report- do you think the ISG report is workable in it's entirety- or is it useful piecemeal, or, is the entire plan prone to failure.

So where's the link to the details of the Iraq Study Group plan, my man?

I was watching the Today show today, when they had Richard Haass on this AM, and he called the entire operation in Iraq a loss already, since the entire ME is now destabilized- an exact opposite of the goals and wishes of this admin. He highlighted again the ISG plan and it's far more realistic approach to the problem, and how that we, as a nation, have already lost our influence and power in the world due to this fiasco.

Also, if thre is a failure of the GW plan of the "surge"- that we have nothing to fall back on, even the ISG plan may fail because of our loss at that point.

Given the four different aspects of the report- do you think the ISG report is workable in it's entirety- or is it useful piecemeal, or, is the entire plan prone to failure.

It sure beats more of the same failed approach to nation-building. Seems a reasonable attempt to resolve a bad situation, but I doubt it'll work as laid out. Things will be a lot messier.

The only plan that's sure to work is for all of us to get into that DeLorean, hit 88 mph, zap back to the year 2000 and vote for Al Gore. So in effect, there is no plan that's sure to work. However, I do know a plan that's destined to failure, and that's more of the same plan that's been in effect, which I am pretty sure ends with this box that says, "And Then A Miracle Happens."

But, as pointed out, this ISG plan is being ignored by those who could possibly implement it. The plan isn't their plan, and thereby does not exist. There's only one plan, and a little less than two more years to keep on doing the same darn thing. I suppose the Republicans who now don't support President Bush are putting on pressure to fix this Iraq thing. I imagine that the RNC is mightily ticked off that the Iraq project has turned out as it has, a major reason that Congress went to the opposition. Who knows, maybe the ISG plan will be window-dressed as the Grand Old Party Neo-plan and implemented. Might happen. Stealing from the opposition party is common, and I don't really care as long as this Iraq mess gets as straightened out as it can and we bring back our soldiers.

As for Iraq? It'll split up, that's becoming more obvious all the time. ME experts should have seen this coming, and maybe they did. Why weren't they listened to? Why? I think we all know. Now's the time to listen, but I doubt they will.

But it's nice to know about the ISG plan in that when President Bush and other Republicans beat the old drum of wanting a plan, well, there it is. You can lead an elephant to water but you can't make it drink.

And your evidence that he hasn't considered it? The fact that he doesn't agree with it doesn't mean he hasn't considered it.

In any event, to answer your debate question, the notion that drawing down troops will somehow encourage the Iraqi government to stand up on their own has nothing to recommend it. It's not like Maliki doesn't already know, and hasn't known for quite some time, that the war is highly unpopular over here. Of course he'd much prefer to be able to stand up so that we wouldn't have to remain there, and of course he knows that the longer it takes for him to be able to do so, the more precarious his political, if not biological, life will be. What's preventing it from happening is lack of security. And drawing down troop levels is not going to provide more security. All it will mean is that our forces will have less manpower with which to defend themselves and carry out their mission, and the enemy will feel further emboldened to keep up the pressure until we leave entirely.

More pertinently, milblogger Bill Roggio reported from Fallujah:


This point was highlighted from a different angle by an analysis presented in this Washington Post article: "Moreover, most Sunnis now believe it would be unwise to count on or help U.S. forces because they are seen as likely to leave the country before imposing stability."

So we have here a critical factor that was completely ignored by the Iraq Study Group in its assessment of the situation. There are ordinary Iraqis - potential allies on the ground in Iraq - whose main reason for casting their lot with insurgent groups is that our wobbliness has made them feel as though the insurgent groups will provide them with better protection against the death squads on the other side. We absolutely can not allow that state of affairs to continue and worsen.

If Bush considered anything else, other than what he is doing, it would greatly surprise me. He said he did, but Bush words haven’t been particularly truthful in the past.

According to a new study by the Congressional Budget Office, it doesn’t appear that Bush told us - his bosses the American people - the whole truth about the price tag and personnel requirements of his own plan for escalation.



http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/01/iraq.surge/index.html

Well lets see. Iraq doesn’t like it. Surely Israel would never go for it – and they have lots of political power here – so why talk about it. Below are the things Baker would force on Israel. And then we agree to allow Iran to have “nuclear power” – meaning nukes. WOW what a great idea? UN troops on border like Lebanan???? Hasn't worked yet? Ludicrous. And if anyone thinks Iran is going to stop stirring the pot in Iraq just check with Madeline on “promises” like this that she got from North Korea.

I have not see the military details but the Iraqi President hates it. Bottom line is it alienates everyone except maybe the enemy and Iran. Hey lets let the Dems put it up for a vote in Congress just as it is - If they have the nerve!


http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p...1-12-2006_pg4_1

They would require Israel to give up the Golan Heights in return for Syria's agreement to stop sending foreign fighters and weapons into Iraq and Lebanon. The loss of Israel's high ground in their north will make a sneak attack against them even easier, but that's not an issue here. We're talking about Iraq, remember?
Next, America would agree to meet directly with Iran to enlist Pres. Ahmadinejab's help in facilitating America's orderly exit from Iraq by promising not to incite any more sectarian violence there. As a reward for this help, America would stop opposing Iran's quest for nuclear power. Why is that a problem?
Then make Israel retreat to its pre-1967 borders and accept a two state solution to the Palestinian problem, permitting Jerusalem to be the Palestinian capitol. For their part the Palestinians will have to agree to say that Israel has a right to exist and that they've renounced terror as a means of getting what they want. (If the past is any indication, they won't have to do it, they'll just have to say it.) When Israel asks about their security in such an arrangement, offer to station international troops along its borders, like the UN did in Lebanon. The ISG plan suggests deploying US troops there as well, so long as both sides agree. Israel is so tired of war, they might be lulled into a false sense of peace by this.

Ted, would you be so kind as to provide a source for any of that?

I ask because the Baker report I have read makes NONE of those recommendations, not a single one. Nor does it even allude to them, ever. Not once. The only exception was an unspecific comment suggesting it might be wise to talk to Iran and Syria about Iraq's future.

Nor, in fact, does the link you provided (From pakistan's leading news source) ever say any of those things, or even suggest them.


So given that none of your criticisms have anything at all to do with the actual report under discussion, do you have any comments on the actual plan? If you are unaware of any of the details, you can find a summary of it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISG_Report

...or the actual report here: http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_r...1206/index.html

Here http://raptureready.com/featured/kelley/isg.html

And ISG allows for a ‘serge” is many ways such as
We could … support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping missions, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective. [Italics added.]
If President Bush wants to pour more troops into Iraq, he could cite this passage to support the increase. What does "short-term" mean, in this context? A week, a month, a year, five years? Again, it means whatever the president (or his commander) wants it to These extra troops, by the way, would be in addition to the 10,000 or so extra troops that the report explicitly recommends sending as advisers embedded inside Iraqi combat units.
http://www.slate.com/id/2154990/pagenum/2/


And in dealing with Syria and Iran
Amazingly enough, this is as similar as one can get to the stated goals of the Bush administration. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the United Nations that "we call upon every state, especially Iran and Syria, to respect the sovereignty of the Lebanese government."

So, the one difference between the committee's proposals and the current administration policy is this: You refuse to engage Syria until it agrees to these reasonable demands—or you engage Syria first and then insist that it accepts these demands. Which brings me back to the question that opened this article: What do you do if the Syrians refuse to show positive signs of cooperation? Do you keep talking? Do you give up on your demands? Do you withdraw your negotiating team—waiting for the next committee to recommend yet another trial?
http://www.slate.com/id/2154991/

The debate is indeed false, since it doesn't address the most probable outcome of the committee's recommendations: The Syrians will not cooperate, the U.N. Security Council will not convince the Iranians to give up on their nuclear program, and the Iraqi military will not be ready to assume power in the country. And then what?

Uh... I don't like to be the guy who attacks sources rather than content, but might I suggest that a personal blogg from an anonymous author posted on 'Rapture Ready', the website for people awaiting the rapture might NOT be the best source of information on the Baker report?

I linked to the ACTUAL baker report, if you could find any of the things you asserted in the report and cite the section I would be most grateful, because I have been unable to find even an allusion to a single one of them.



See, THAT is a perfect example of why you should draw your information from the actual report, rather than edited quoted from a far-right wing blogpage. The actual paragraph in question from the ISG report is:

Because of the importance of Iraq to our regional security goals and to our ongoing fight
against al Qaeda, we considered proposals to make a substantial increase (100,000 to 200,000)
in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. We rejected this course because we do not believe that the
needed levels are available for a sustained deployment. Further, adding more American troops
could conceivably worsen those aspects of the security problem that are fed by the view that the
U.S. presence is intended to be a long-term “occupation.” We could, however, support a shortterm
redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the
training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would
be effective.

Editing out half that quote sure does change its meaning, doesn't it?



Again, the actual report is a FAR better guide to what the report says than a far-right wing blogpage, I really recommend reading the report in question. Again your page completely misrepresents the report. It NEVER advocated sending in ANOTHER 10,000 troops to embed in and train Iraqi combat units, it recommends withdrawing ALL BUT 10,000 to 20,000 troops which would remain embedded inside Iraqi combat units to train them.

So given that your right-wing blog source has been openly caught deliberately misrepresenting the actual report, might I suggest you find another source; possibly even the Report itself?

And while I am asking, I am still waiting for you to evidence the rather spectacular claims you made in your previous post regarding the recommendations of the ISG...

I didn’t edit anything out that mattered. They don’t support 100,000 But DO support a surge. Get it. Here let me quote for you.

We could, however, support a shortterm
redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the
training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would
be effective.

And I did read the report in that section and they do not advocate “recommends withdrawing ALL BUT 10,000 to 20,000 troops which would remain embedded inside Iraqi combat units to train them.” - the withdrawal is 2008. Post it if you want to prove me wrong.


And once again the insipid remark about “rightwing blogs” as if you left wing blogs are all perfectly accurate??? Give me a break.