Thanks to the translation work of the Middle East Media Research Institute, we are privvy to what the study group recommendations actually mean to the movement for reform in the Middle East. Omar Salman who edits the Arabic reformist website "Aafaq" (Arabic for "horizon"), has written an editorial titled "The Poisonous Report" (the link is to MEMRI's translation). The title speaks for itself.
[...] "What the authors of the report did not know, or may have neglected, is the fact that the moment they started talking about the U.S.'s need for Iranian assistance in containing the Iraqi situation, they in fact handcuffed the Bush administration, depriving it of any cards to pressure Iran, now and in the future." [...]
His editorial is an absolute MUST-read. Don't stop at this editorial either; read this editor's other MEMRI-translated pieces. Links to those are provided in the footnotes of the editorial translation. All are very thought-provoking pieces for those of us who earnestly want to understand the mindset of Arab reformists. His insights are invaluable and it's my sincerest hope that his opinions are known to the Bush administration and are weighed just as heavily as those of the study group.
The curious among you may want to know more about Omar Salman. From the American Enterprise Institute's bio of him:
Dig deeper on Middle East issues and "Know-Nothing Diplomacy" at Daniel Pipes' blog. His articles are extremely interesting, well-informed, and highly educational."Omran Salman currently directs the Arab Reformists Project, ‘Aafaq' (Arabic for 'horizons'). Originally from Bahrain, he served as a senior editor of the Iraq Democracy Paper in conjunction with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies from 2004 to 2005. During this period, he also worked as journalist for Voice of America, where he broadcasted internationally in Arabic. From 2000 to 2003, Mr. Salman was a managing editor assistant for al-Jazeera in Doha, Qatar. In the 1990s, he worked as a journalist and columnist for two of Bahrain’s most distinguished papers, al-Ayam and Akhbar al-Khaleej. Mr. Salman has published hundreds of articles on Middle Eastern issues in a number of Arab publications.
Comments
You can find the entire report here.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/12/06/iraq_study_group_report.pdf
What is fact, however, is that the Bush Administration's record is one of blunders and failure - and chief among the blunders is Bush's Blunder in Iraq. Please, don't compare this Blunder with World War II. That is an insult to the Greatest Generation. Instead, the accurate comparison is with the Spanish American War - what was it Hearst said? "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." Paraphrased, 'you furnish the WMD, I'll furnish the war.'
I appreciate your critique of my phraseology; however, before you start stereotyping, you might be surprised to find that "Liberty-loving Conservative" is absolutely not an oxymoron to those of us who remember Goldwater. Learn a little about us, you might be surprised.
I won't bother to address the rambling ad hominem Bush-bashing. That very type of ranting from the Left is what keeps this country so politically divided. Isn't it time to MoveOn.org? Ah well. I suppose now that "the adults are in charge" America will have a nice campfire sing-along, eh?
Thanks for stopping by.
As for Goldwater, there's no doubt in my mind that he would have disowned George W. Bush as a Conservative; however, I seriously doubt he would have totally ditched Conservativism in favor of Socialistic ideologies. Even so, I must say that I like Bush's spine when it comes to standing straight on a war we were thrown into via bin Laden's declaration of war years ago.
I would encourage you to stop looking backward and start looking forward in a constructive way. We can all say that we were misled. The intelligence coming from many countries at the time pointed clearly to the direction GWB took us. It does this country no good to have people worried about blame and not worried about how we move forward.
For proof one need look no further than Baker-Hamilton recomendation number 19, starting on page 60:
"RECOMMENDATION 19: The President and the leadership of his national security team should remain in close and frequent contact with the Iraqi leadership. [Newsflash! That's what we're doing now! - KAD] These contacts must convey a clear message: there must be action by the Iraqi government to make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones. [Newsflash! That's a message we've been attempting to "make clear" going on four years now! Is this what constitutes an "earthshakingly important recomendation" nowadays? - KAD] In public diplomacy, the President should convey as much detail as possible about the substance of these exchanges in order to keep the American people, the Iraqi
people, and the countries in the region well informed."
Rec 19 says three things.
1) We have to continue talking to the Iraqis. To that I say, DUH!
2) We have to send a "clear message" that Iraq must stand up in its own defense. Double DUH!
3) Bush must inform, well, everyone of the details of these diplomatic exchanges.
On that last point the ISG is clearly out of their collective mind. As Dawn points out in her original post, our enemies are calling this ISG report itself a "victory," while our friends in Iran, the reformists, are calling it "The Poisonous Report."
It's back to the drawing board, I'm afraid. No really! I'm afraid! While I'm sure most planners in Washington charged with actually doing something about our less-than-perfect situation in Iraq will see through the ameturish posturing of this useless study... I have to ask, we spent how many millions of dollars on this drivel?!
As to the ISG report, it wasn't earth shaking nor was it original - this information has been around a long time. It just needed to come from James Baker (and no doubt George HW Bush) for validity to the neocons and the Worst President in History. I didn't need the ISG to tell me the situation in Iraq was 'grave and deteriorating,' did you?
Sad to say, we need a Teddy Roosevelt but we have a Napoleon III.
Um... which is it, Bill? Is Bush an evil genius? A puppet mouthpiece? An idiot blunderer? You can't have all three. There are limits to the space-time continuum.
Would it kill you to ratchet down the "Bush is simultaneously a 'blunderer' AND a new Napoleon" rhetoric just a tad?
Thanks.
Would it kill you Leftists to actually put forth something more constructive for a change? What would you do instead? What would make a difference to people like you who ignore the positive developments in Iraq and simply point blame? What puts you back on the side of America and stops you from being so negative and hate-slinging?
What it comes down to, Dawn, is my originally held opinion prior to 3/03 has been proven correct. Iraq was and is a blunder of great proportion. It was predictably so then and Mr. Obvious could not have made it clear to Bush becasue he was as out of touch with reality then as he is now. Or agenda driven.
Did you see this? http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/world/16253919.htm
"During the months leading up to the war, he said, there was no new evidence that Hussein posed a threat. "What changed was the government's determination to present available evidence in a different light," he testified."
My opinion doesn't make me a 'leftist' or a 'communist' or a 'loon.' You've got to get away from this Democrat = wacko liberal and I'll get away from Republican = rightwingnumbnutz.
I do like Arlen Specter, though. He's going to Syria.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-cong/2006/dec/15/121501165.html
"In recent days, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked Specter in a telephone call not to go to Syria, the senator said. But Specter, who had acquiesced previously to similar requests, said time was up.
""I deferred to them a year ago, and I deferred to them last August," Specter said. "And if there were any signs the administrative policy (in the Middle East) was working, I'd defer to them again.""
My reference to "Mr. Obvious" was because most of us already understand the problems discussed in the report and they send no new light on them. The suggestion that we talk to the largest nation-state that supports terrorism in an effort to resolve problems in Iraq? Well that was just ridiculous! That's like asking a robber to help you hide your valuables from other robbers!! Nonsense.
I don't believe I've referred to anyone who comments on this blog a "loon," Democrat or otherwise. I try to shy away from the name-calling as it's counter-productive to intellectual discourse. When I use the term Leftist -- I mean someone who adheres to Socialist or Communist ideals and/or someone who does not put his/her own country first in the list of global priorities.
I certainly have never assumed that all Democrats are "wacko liberals," because I know many who are Conservative and not the least bit wacko. As a matter of fact, you'll find a few of them commenting here at ConservaChick. Party affiliation does not define the person even though the outrageous actions of some people define the party.
I would indeed encourage you to drop the Bush "Worst President in History" blinders so you can see events in this world outside of that -- regardless of your opinion of our President, there are problems to be solved and pointing blame non-stop is no way to be a part of the solution. I think Specter is a smart man -- I'm sure he'll come back with more interesting findings that did the ISG who never even left the Green Zone in Baghdad!