Now I don't want to get off on a rant here...

Does the ISG have a problem with Billy Madison?

When Billy Madison stepped onto the dodge ball court during recess he was promptly peg by a first grader and then retreated to the safety of his teacher. A short time later he returned to the game, caught the ball with one hand and let loose a resounding cry, "YOU'RE ALL IN BIG TROUBLE". Billy suffered an initial defeat despite being bigger and stronger, but in the end prevailed by pounding the little kids into oblivion.

Is this a ridiculous example? Of course. But why do so many wish to sound the bell of retreat and defeat when it comes to the War on Terror? The Battle of Iraq as part of the War on Terror must be fought and won for the future of America and for the future of the Middle East. Our government has faithfully been working on solutions towards that end while the President has announced that he will be sharing the way forward after the first of the year.

Perhaps the most scrutinized aspect of this collective thought process comes from the Iraq Study Group Report. Admittedly, I have only read the Executive summary and there is plenty of analysis floating around the web including some interesting thoughts on the Good, the Bad and the Ugly realities from the Heritage Foundation. For my simplistic mind I have focused on two basic aspects of this report as laid out in the summary: the External and the Internal Approach.

External - Yet Iraq’s neighbors are not doing enough to help Iraq achieve stability. Some are undercutting stability....Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively. In seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United States has disincentives and incentives available.

The ISG seems to contradict itself to some degree with the foreign policy solutions. While they talk about the undercutting that exists by outside influences they then suggest the direct negotiations with those that are doing that very undercutting in the first place. In all fairness, James Baker while briefing the Senate was questioned by Senator Lieberman and stated that there was no harm in asking, despite the probability of their answer and thus showing the international community what they really are. Haven't they figured out who Iran & Syria are yet though and will that really make much of an impact if they haven't?? I doubt so. It seems that we need to focus more on the disincentives and use the big dodge ball that we have in hand.

Internal - The United States should work closely with Iraq’s leaders to support the achievement of specific objectives—or milestones—on national reconciliation, security, and governance. Miracles cannot be expected, but the people of Iraq have the right to expect action and progress. The Iraqi government needs to show its own citizens—and the citizens of the United States and other countries—that it deserves continued support.

This is a great summary of the domestic challenges facing the people of Iraq. Preventing an all out Civil War, maintaining the safety of their citizens from the undercutting insurgency and establishing a solid democracy will preserve a future for Iraq. In turn they will become a vital partner in the War on Terror. The major problem with this is that by in large the outcome of these challenges will be decided by the Iraqi's themselves and not by the US. This is obviously an uncomfortable position to be in for us, but not one that makes us weak; one that shows a trust in a greater hope for the world. Something that real leadership must be willing to show when called upon.

Posted by price at December 14, 2006 01:38 PM | TrackBack