[Texgreen] Iraq study group report

[Roger Baker]

[This is by an Austin peace activist now living in Ireland. -- Roger]



Analysis of the Assessment and External recommendations of the
Iraq Study Group
doug foxvog

[An analysis of Section II B, "The Internal Approach: Helping
Iraqis Help Themselves" will be published in a separate article]

The Iraq Study Group Report came out today. It provides a lot
of information about the US war on Iraq, but ends up with several
faulty reccomendations.

They report:
* the situation is deteriorating.
* The ability of the United States to shape outcomes is diminishing.
Time is running out.
* The global standing of the United States could suffer if Iraq descends
further into chaos.
* none of the operations conducted by U.S. and Iraqi military forces are
fundamentally changing the conditions encouraging sectarian violence
* U.S. forces seem to be caught in a mission that has no forseeable end.
* the United States has spent roughly $400 billion on the Iraq
War, and the consts are running about $8 billion per month.
* Estimates run as high as $2 trillion for the final cost of the
U.S. involvement in Iraq.

This cost is almost $7,000 for each resident of the United States.

The report included some facts that most in the U.S. are unaware of:
* the United States and Iran cooperated in Afghanistan.
However, they fail to note that Syria assisted the U.S. in the Global
War on Terror, including by torturing a suspect kidnapped by the CIA
and "rendered" to Syria.

The Iraq Study Group is concerned that the ethnic conflicts that have
broken out in Iraq (due to our invasion and occupation) could spread
to neighboring countries. This would harm the U.S. because, as they so
delicately put it:
* If the instability in Iraq spreads to other Gulf States, a drop in oil
production and exports could lead to a sharp increase in the price of
oil and thus could harm the global economy.

They Iraq Study Group recognizes that the U.S. public opposes the war:
* Sixty-six percent of Americans disapprove of the government's handling
of the war.
as does the Iraqi public:
* 79 percent of Iraqis have a "mostly negative" view of the influence  
that
the Unied States has in their country.
* Sixty-one percent of Iraqis approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces.
* [The Sunni Arab resistance] has significant support within the Sunni
Arab community.

However, they make it clear that the war is about US hegemony:

* Perceived failure [in Iraq] could diminish America's credibility and
influence in a region that is the center of the Islamic world and vital
to the world's energy supply. This loss would reduce America's global
influence ...
* the longer that U.S. political and military resources are tied down in
Iraq, the more the chances for American failure in Afghanistan increase.

The Iraq Study group does accept some of the Bush Administration's far-
fetched claims.
-- They evidently do not consider us an occupying power,
since they write, "[i]f the Iraqis continue to perceive Americans as
representing an occupying force".
-- They claim, "Iraq is a sovereign state".
-- Even though the International Atomic Energy Commission's  
inspectors have
found no evidence and the US government have produced none, the  
report claims
(also citing no evidence) that Iran "is on a path to producing  
nuclear weapons."

The reports appears to try to mislead the reader on who is involved in
the resistance to occupation:
* The [Sunni Arab] insurgency comprises former elements of the Saddam
Hussein regime, disaffected Sunni Arab Iraqis, and common criminals.
Since Sunni Arabs who are contented with the current regime would not  
be part
of the resistance, all Iraqi members of the Sunni Arab resistance would
fit in the second category. This first category is included in the
second and need not be mentioned. It's possible that some of the Sunni
Arab common criminals might be non-Iraqis, but they are basicly included
in the "disaffected Sunni Arab Iraqis" catch-all. The only thing that
this sentence tells us is that the Sunni Arab insurgency does not  
contain
significant amounts of foreigners.

Their analysis of "U.S.-Led Reconstruction Efforts" is disingenuous.
They report that:
* The United States has appropriated a total of about $34 billion to  
support
the reconstruction of Iraq....
* Nearly $16 billion has been spent, and almost all of the funds have  
been
committed.
They do not note that much of these funds were spent for "security"  
for the
"reconstruction" effort as opposed to actual construction. They do  
not report
that auditors have been unable to account for how billions of these  
dollars have
been spent. They do not provide any figures on what reconstruction  
has been
done, nor what structures now exist in Iraq as a result of the  
reconstruction
effort. What portion of this is investment in petroleum export  
infrastructure?
What portion was spent repairing schools, hospitals, and water treatment
facilities? What portion was spent for Halliburton (and others)  
importing
gasoline and food from Kuwait?

They discuss three major viewpoints in Iraq, but mislead in calling them
"sectarian" since one of the viewpoints is that of Iraqi Kurds, who  
do not
have a sectarian difference with the Sunni Arabs.

Some of the figures included in the report just seem wrong. They  
report that
"[t]here are roughly 5,000 civilian contractors in the country" just  
days after
a leaked US government report documented that there are around  
100,000. The
report states that "[a]pproximately 141,000 U.S. military personnel  
are serving
in Iraq" while news reports say the number is 150,000.

The report states that "[n]one of Iraq's neighbors ... see it in  
their interest
for the situation in Iraq to lead to aggrandized regional influence  
by Iran."
Since they do realize that Iran is one of Iraq's neighbors, this must  
mean that
Iran does not see it in its own interest to have its regional influence
aggrandized -- or else this is just sloppy writing.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Although the Iraq Study Group claims that it "has carefully  
considered the
full range of alternative approaches for moving forward", it dismisses a
rapid withdrawal by only discussing a "precipitate withdrawal of  
troops AND
SUPPORT". It doesn't examine an immediate halt to offensive actions and
return to base, a withdrawal negotiated with the resistance and Iraqi
government, and a commitment to years of reconstruction/reparations  
funding.

The Iraq Study Group agrees with what it calls "THE goal of U.S.  
policy in
Iraq" [Emphasis added]: "an Iraq that can 'govern itself, sustain  
itself, and
defend itself.'" Of course, this was the state of affairs before the  
U.S.
invasion, although only marginally so due to the sanctions. It goes  
without
saying that the desired ability to defend itself does not cover  
defense against
the U.S. They go on to state that this goal entails additional goals  
that are
far harder to achieve: "a broadly representative government", "denies  
terrorism
a sanctuary", and "doesn't brutalize its own people".

The first recommendation is a "New Diplomatic Offensive". I suppose  
that they
included the word "Offensive" to appeal to the Bush Administration  
hawks, but
i consider the word offensive.

They recommend a meeting in Baghdad of the Orgainization of the Islamic
Conference and/or of the Arab League, without recognizing that such a  
meeting
could not take place until the country has become peaceful again.  
There is
no way that heads of state or even foreign ministers would gather  
together
in such a dangerous location. One might argue that the Green Zone  
would be
secure enough for such a meeting to take place, but this ignores the  
fact that
many countries would not find holding such a meeting in what is in  
effect a
huge U.S. military base to be totally unacceptible.

They suggest that Saudi Arabia "could ... cancel the Iraqi debt owed  
them."
Strange how it was so important for Iraq under sanctions to pay this  
debt,
but now that the U.S. has to fund the Iraqi government, it should be  
cancelled.

They recommend the creation of an Iraq Support group including all  
the countries
bordering Iraq, the five permanent Security Council members Egypt,  
and the Gulf
States. They expect Iran to decline to participate, which "would  
demonstrate to
Iraq and the rest of the world Iran's rejectionist attitude and  
approach, which
could lead to its isolation."

They recommend that Israel return the Golan Heights to Syria in  
exchange for
peace, but they fail to recommend that Israel return all Palestinian
territory captured in the 1967 war to Palestine in exchange for peace  
on that
front.

They recommend additional military "support" for the Afghan government,
"including resources that might become available as combat forces are  
moved
from Iraq."

************************************************************************ 
***

-- 
=============================================================
doug foxvog doug@foxvog.org http://ProgressiveAustin.org

"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
=============================================================