From The Founder's Desk
columnist: Walt Thiessen

Topic: Iraq
Independent Iraqi Commission Report Fails To Make Key Recommendations: Political Leaders Follow Suit

---

The report released September 6th by the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, chaired by retired General James L. Jones, USMC fails to make recommendations on the most important concerns the committee identified in Iraq today.

---

by Walt Thiessen
(Libertarian)
Friday, September 7, 2007

The Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, chaired by retired General James L. Jones issued their report yesterday on their take on the security situation Iraq. Download the report here.

One of the most striking points made by yesterday's Jones commission report is found on page 34:

"Iraqi society is being convulsed by sectarianism that if not swiftly and significantly curtailed could contribute to a rapid deterioration of Iraq, with 'grave humanitarian, political, and security consequences.' [Quote attributed to the January 2007 unclassified National Intelligence Estimate entitled, 'Prospects for Iraq's Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead'.] Iraq's overall security environment is very complex. Elements of terror, ethnic violence, insurgency, meddling by external actors, and criminal activity all combine to define, in varying degrees, the nature of the threats. The commission assesses that despite all that remain to be done, the single most important event that could immediately and favorably affect Iraq's direction and security is political reconciliation focused on ending sectarian violence and hatred. Sustained progress within the Iraqi Security Forces depends on such a political agreement."

The reason this quote is so striking is that, despite it's clear claim that sustained progress depends upon such a political agreement, the report makes no recommendations as to how to attain that agreement, and rightfully so.

This point cuts to the core of the entire debate as to what America should do regarding Iraq. It casts grave doubts upon the very real, very relevant question: can we realistically hope to achieve anything more by our presence in Iraq? Because if achieving such a political agreement is not a realistic possibility, there's no point in remaining in Iraq, especially given the indiputable fact that America's presence is fueling most of the insurgent activity in Iraq today. Without the hope of such a political agreement, not only does America's continued presence undermine an already decimated Iraqi society, but it also undermines our own nation's security, as well as the security of the rest of the region and, indeed, of the entire world.

After detailing 50 key findings and making seven recommendations concerning Iraqi security, the report leaves this critical question unanswered. Yet by the report's own admission, it is the most important question where Iraqi security (and ultimately the security of American forces in Iraq) is concerned.

Republicans treated the report as proof that the surge is working, while Democrats treated the report as proof that we're going nowhere. The Democrats are closer to being correct than the Republicans on this point, but they're still wrong.

According to a New York Times report, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain voiced his satisfaction when Gen. Jones made the point that deadlines work against us. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton countered, "If we take away deadlines, we take away benchmarks, we take away timelines, what is the urgency that will move them to act?" Both candidates are heavily concerned with deadlines, but neither seems to pay the slightest attention to the much more important question of how to achieve political agreement within Iraq. This fact undermines both of their arguments completely.

The indisputable fact is that there is no way to insure that, "political reconciliation focused on ending sectarian violence and hatred" can be achieved. Even if a forced agreement were somehow cobbled together at U.S. insistence, it would not be likely to hold. The simple fact is that Iraq is nowhere near such an agreement and will not likely achieve a real agreement of this kind anytime within the next 10-20 years. They have too many years of bloodshed and hatred among the competing factions to hope for such an achievement, and no one is reporting from anywhere inside Iraq that there is any real basis for hope for such an agreement.

All of this raises a very poignant question: why are all America's leaders so inappropriately focused on withdrawal timetables? Shouldn't the debate be about whether the Bush administrations goals in Iraq can be achieved at all? If our best information available tells us that the Bush administration's goals in Iraq are nothing but a pipe dream, then it is irresponsible to detract attention from this main point by bandying back and forth about withdrawal timetables. This is the point that both conservative and liberal leaders and pundits should be addressing, and none of them are doing so. And I, for one, am sick of their irresponsible attitudes.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
1 thumb so far

2007 Walt Thiessen, all rights reserved.
Published: Friday, September 7, 2007
Last modified: Friday, September 7, 2007

The views expressed in this article are those of Walt Thiessen only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Walt Thiessen is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Walt Thiessen of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.