Iraq Study Group Report: Light on Realism
Coming from a group of supposed realists, the Iraq Study Group Report instead appears to be a fine utopian wish list. Unfortunately, the United States needed much more than a wish list to be released last week by the committee chaired by Baker and Hamilton. It needed a blueprint for a comprehensive strategy that acknowledges the realities facing the Middle East today.
Take Recommendation 35 for example. This suggestion boldly states that “The United States must make active efforts to engage all parties in Iraq, with the exception of al Qaeda. The United States must find a way to talk to Grand Ayatollah Sistani, Moqtada al-Sadr, and militia and insurgent leaders.” The report then goes on to emphasize the importance of “fostering dialog” among divided parties in Iraq.
If I am reading this correctly, it would seem as if the suggested course of action would be to invite the bloodthirsty al-Sadr out for a delicious, piping hot Arby’s roast beef sandwich and curly fries to “dialog,” a favorite activity amongst politically correct leftists, about the tender feelings of his 60,000 strong jihad brigade that is intent on killing anyone who does not conform to their fundamentalist ideal.
Moving along, nestled between Recommendations 37 and 38 sits another gem: “the United Nations and expert and experienced nongovernmental organizations especially the International Organization for Migration, must be on the ground with appropriate personnel months before any program to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate militia members begins.” This interlude between recommendations then tells us that the United States should not be involved in implementing such a program, however, “U.S. financial and technical support is crucial.”
In essence the ISG is telling us that the United Nations—the very United Nations which, in a show that would make Nero blush with envy—fiddled while the Rwandan genocide blazed in front of their own eyes. The United Nations, as history has illustrated time and time again, is incapable of determining what to order for lunch let alone how to solve international disasters. Why on earth would the United States government agree to turn over operations to perhaps the most inept, anti-American band of know-nothings imaginable?
The message is clear, yet typical: American efforts are no good, but her money is.
The ISG suggests that the U.S. should abstain from involving itself in the attempt to demobilize the militias. However, U.S. money should pay for this very operation. It sounds similar to the way the United Nations works (if one truly was bold enough to claim that it works at all). The United States plunks down 22 percent of the UN’s overall budget and 27 percent of the organization’s “peacekeeping” budget, yet is generally shunned by nations such as Syria and Cuba who hardly deserve to sit in this body let alone chastise those who finance the UN’s operation. Why in the blazes should we kowtow to them?
In order to avoid being labeled as a complete nay-sayer towards this study, I can state that I agree completely with the ISG’s opinion that there is a great need for more Arabic speakers in American service departments and that the “costs of the war in Iraq should be included in the President’s annual budget request” rather than as an emergency supplemental appropriation (see Recommendation 72 and Section 7: Budget Preparation, Presentation, and Review).
Then we come to Section 6 of the ISG report, entitled “U.S. Economic and Reconstruction Assistance” gives us a glimpse into the nation-building philosophy which clearly governed the formulation of this report. This section calls for greater U.S. funds and a massive job creation program to be funded by the generous American taxpayer.
Recommendation 64 tells us that “U.S. economic assistance should be increased to a level of $5 billion per year.” What is the ISG’s grand scheme for financing Iraq’s economic development? You guessed it. Congress should dish out the money to finance Iraqi job creation.
What does this mean to those of us who believe that our government currently spends too much money, involves itself too greatly, and regulates too tightly the domestic affairs within our own nation? It means that not only will we continue to pay ludicrously high federal taxes for big, bloated government at home, but we will also be paying for the same types of big governmental programs for Iraq.
Prior to the report’s release, there was incessant chatter about the ISG report being a “realist” vision for how to move forward in Iraq. After reading the recommendations within, seeing this “realist” document’s undeterred faith in the United Nations, its desire to spend American money while brushing American leadership aside, and the group’s hope to export our lavish, expensive big government programs from America to Iraq tells me that the ISG report decided to go light on the realism.
A realistic report would have recognized that diplomacy with Iran is not possible. It would have told us that al-Sadr should be tracked down and terminated rather than brought into the “dialog” with peace-seeking people. A realistic report would have acknowledged the single greatest threat to Middle East peace, world security, and the piece of the puzzle most over-looked by the U.S. prior to the liberation of Iraq: the Islamic “religion.”
This report fails to take into consideration that peace will never thrive in the Middle East because of religious conflicts which date back longer than most can imagine. A realistic ISG document would have told us to get out the way before the religious war erupts, leaving our soldiers in the cross-hairs. A realistic report would have also reminded us that one cannot negotiate, bargain, or talk sense with those who place the Koran above the prospects of peace and freedom.
We cannot begin to turn the tide and win the war on terror until we acknowledge that peace is antithetical to Islamism, and that we cannot haggle with those who live and thrive on the prospect of reaching “heaven” through our demise.
Nathan Shrader can be reached at nathanrshrader@yahoo.com
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
