The ISG Report
I’m headed to work, so I’ll leave the deeper analyses to my peers here. But this preliminary summary from CNN grants me a chance to add a tad more to my analysis below:
1) Of course, I left out the essential regional strategy of furthering the peace process between Israel and Palestine. I consider that a no-brainer. Even though it means negotiating with Hamas.
2) In my analysis, I downplayed regional negotiations, though I didn’t mean to preclude them. The report supports my contention that no neighbor benefits if Iraq becomes a failed state, not even Iran. So regional conversations should take place - but NOT to the exclusion of the MORE important internal conversations that I recommend. Me and the ISG may have to disagree on that, as I believe we owe enough respect to Iraqis to grant them the first hearing.
3) Of course, a degree of consensus is necessary to achieve decisions. But getting to yes may necessarily be contentious. Not for party partisan reasons, but to gain the smartest means to a desirable end.
My advice remains: courage, innovation and openmindedness, as I detail below.
4) My two year window (though out of political prudence, they refuse to call it a timetable) aligns with theirs. I should have added in my analysis, that I think there’s a window of 2-3 months where strategic relocation of our troops should be done to minimize the risks to at least half of them. And to build positive results in areas of Iraq where that can be done with a minimum of conflict (building infrastructure or training Iraqi police and troops).
5) Now WaPo has added more detail. Good, they agree that the goals originally set are unobtainable; that war is lost. They say they’re trying to mitigate defeat, or some such unimportant distinction. The gist of that is a working government may be obtainable. I agree, but again, as I noted in my analysis, I expect it won’t be the current government. Some of its members may remain, but at least a few - including its principal leader - will likely have to be added.
