ISG Report borrows heavily from Kerry's Iraq plan (aka Kerry/Feingold amendment)

[beachmom]

Here are the cliff notes to the Report:

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/

The Iraq Study Group report: Key excerpts
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Here are some excerpts from portions of the Iraq Study Group report -- set to be released at 11 a.m., ET today.

***

"Our most important recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly. We believe that these two recommendations are equally important and reinforce one another.

***

"The United States should immediately launch a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region. This diplomatic effort should include every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq's neighbors. Iraq's neighbors and key states in and outside the region should form a support group to reinforce security and national reconciliation within Iraq, neither of which Iraq can achieve on its own."

***

"Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively. In seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United States has disincentives and incentives available. Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation.

***

"The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations. By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq.




So it's about diplomacy and training Iraqis. The deadline for withdrawal may COME OUT OF those diplomatic efforts. Although not a firm date, first quarter of 2008 is still a date, and it uses the same ideas as Kerry as to how only force protection should be left in Iraq after that time. This date is only 6 months later than Kerry's.

[beachmom]

1. I have not read the whole report -- I am basing my assumptions

that CNN's cliff notes offers the main thrust of the report. Anybody know if it calls for more troops?

[beachmom]

2. Here's another take from a Time Blog post

http://time-blog.com/allen_report/2006/12/exclusive_what_the_baker_repor.html

This sounds like Kerry:

But the panelists say the U.S. "must not make open-ended commitments to keep large numbers of troops deployed in Iraq."

[wisteria]

3. Some people were paying attention.

Senator Kerry seemed happy with what he had heard this morning on CNN.
I wonder if anyone will give some kudos to Kerry.
Already today from a right wing radio program they were down playing the report and complaining about the panel.

[dwahzon]

4. Thanks

for this summary.

You have email. :)

[ProSense]

5. Kerry Says...

Kerry Says, Others Agree - Part 1

[ProSense]

6. Tom Hayden on ISG:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3004835&mesg_id=3004835

[Mass]

7. I am not sure - I am concerned that too many Democrats will be too positive

on this report. I heard the press conference in the doctor's waiting-room and I was not really very happy with what I heard (not surprised either, I was not expecting anything and I got what I expected).

Sure, they had to present some ideas, and for that, they leaned heavily on Democratic ideas, including Kerry's and others'.

However, they still seek success in Iraq (what success??), they propose very little when it comes to troop redeployment and certainly no immediate change, and they certainly refuse the idea of a deadline.

I certainly agree with Hayden whose position Prosense posted earlier and with Feingold:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_03_atrios_archive.html#116543027607955860.

Unfortunately, the Iraq Study Group report does too little to change the flawed mind-set that led to the misguided war in Iraq. Maybe there are still people in Washington who need a study group to tell them that the policy in Iraq isn’t working, but the American people are way ahead of this report.

While the report has regenerated a few good ideas, it doesn’t adequately put Iraq in the context of a broader national security strategy. We need an Iraq policy that is guided by our top national security priority – defeating the terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11 and its allies. We can’t continue to just look at Iraq in isolation. Unless we set a serious timetable for redeploying our troops from Iraq, we will be unable to effectively address these global threats. In the end, this report is a regrettable example of ‘official Washington’ missing the point.

I do not think we want the ownership of the ideas that were presented. Sure, some change is better than nothing, but what was presented was a hodgepodge of ideas that seem to be there to present a solution without going against Bush (I agree fully with this comment from Kerry this morning, but I do not know what else he has been saying about the plan - I would hope he was not too positive).

[Mass]

8. Kerry's statement

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/releases/release.html?id=50

ohn Kerry on The Iraq Study Group Report

“Not one more American soldier should die because politicians in Iraq or in the United States are unwilling to face reality and change direction. We need to change course now. Today, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group issued an urgent call for a new direction in Iraq. Their report acknowledges the futility of the current policy. If the Administration will accept its recommendations, this report can provide core elements of the way forward.

“The report underscores what many of us have long been arguing: there is no military solution to our deep problems in Iraq. Most importantly the report calls on policy makers to acknowledge that for Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future, the large commitment of American forces in Iraq can not be indefinite. Meeting the report’s goal of getting our combat troops out of Iraq by early in 2008 is essential to forcing the diplomatic and political steps needed to achieve stability. I wish the report went further by making this a hard deadline for redeploying our combat troops. Iraqi political leaders have proven time and again that they only respond to hard deadlines, and I believe that a deadline is the most effective way to expedite the process and save lives.

“The report calls for a step for which I have been a strong advocate for over two years: a major diplomatic initiative bringing together others in the region – including Iran and Syria – to forge a political solution to end the violence. Prime Minister Maliki has now embraced the idea of a regional conference, and this requires real diplomacy from the Administration to make it successful. I strongly support the report’s calls for sending additional military and economic support to Afghanistan as we disengage from Iraq because it is clear that we must redeploy from Iraq to succeed in Afghanistan.”

I guess this is the half-empty, half-full problem. Nothing that Kerry says is wrong, but I cannot see this report as as positive as he presents it.

Between what Kerry, Feingold, and Hayden say, I guess I am closer to Hayden.

[TayTay]

9. Remember where we are in this discussion

Sen. Kerry was ridiculed in June for bringing up the 'date certain' withdrawal plan. This ISG represents and opportunity to bring the discussion forward. I would think the good Senator knows that this is not enough. However, it is a damn sight better than what the discussion was in June. Withdrawal is on the table. The Dayton like summit is on the table. More active diplomacy is on the table.

This is 3/4rds of a loaf. The ball has been forwarded down the field. That much more is right with the world.

[Mass]

10. I know. It is just that sometimes you have to be straightforward in what you

think. I do not know what Kerry thinks, but I personally think that, while this report is an improvement to the Bush's position, it is by far inadequate. This is my position. It does not have to be Kerry's one. I just hoped it would be, and, I can see from his statement it is at least in part inadequate.

[TayTay]

13. I thought it was pretty straight forward

Kerry said that this is not what he would have recommended, he still wants a timetable to get out.

He is very happy that the ISG Report pushes so strongly for a diplomatic solution to some of the problems in Iraq.

Sen. Kerry is too much of a realist not to take the parts of this report that not only vindicate him but are doable and push them. This is a much better place to be in than we were in in June. This is a much better start for the Democratic Congress and all those hearings-to-be in Jan/Feb than we have ever had.

This is, after all, only the beginning of the real discussion with the Bush Admin now that the Dems have some power. This is just the start point.

[Mass]

14. I think he is straightforward. I was trying to be straightforward about what I think.

I really hope you are right in your analysis, but I have my doubts. I doubt that the WH will want to discuss anything (if the WH press gaggle was an indication, they think that the ISG did not rebuke them). In addition, I still think the delay is too far and that we are going to a catastrophy in the Middle East and elsewhere as it stands. Things need to change quickly and, given where the WH stands, you have to start with a somewhat extreme position to negotiate and arrive to something that could work.

The ISG position (that is not kerry's, I understand that) is too moderate as a starting point of negotiation with the WH (though it is probably where many Dems stands). This is why we need to have strong voices that continue to pull the caucus to a more solid position. I would expect that senator Kerry will continue to be one of those.

[beachmom]

15. I don't think you need to worry about this. The Right Wing is

already condemning the ISG report. It was doomed from the start. It wouldn't matter what the plan said -- Bush will reject it because he's a stubborn mule. So this way, Democrats can criticize aspects of the plan but advocate for the THRUST of the plan which is diplomacy and withdrawal. What can the Right possibly say about it, since they advocate increasing hostilities and more troops, etc. The Democrats represent the mainstream and the Republicans are out of touch with reality. That's the message that needs to be sent out loud and clear.

You're right that it is awful that we can't get our troops out of there. But we KNEW that was going to happen with Bush, no matter what Jim Baker said. He can't fix this, and he won't. He'd rather our troops die than swallow his pride. That's where we are.

[wisteria]

12. I agree, sometimes it takes time to move people to a certain way of thinking.

I want to see what and how the summit is handled. Any chance Kerry could be part of a delegation?

[sandnsea]

18. But since Bush screws up everything

Then what are we going to do when he screws up what almost any other President could succeed with. If the whole plan isn't there, I'm not sure any of it can succeed. Then the risk is that we lose credibility and the 'more troops, bomb them to kingdom come', scenario gets a listen which would be a true disaster. I'm very concerned about Democrats becoming too enthusiastic with this report and having nowhere to go if it fails.

[wisteria]

11. He is disappointed in the lack of a sure date, but he said he takes the early

08 reference as such. At least that is what I interpreted him saying this morning.
If Bush does take the advice, then it is a step in the right direction. Obviously, many on the committee felt a quick withdraw was dangerous to Iraq and the whole region.

[sandnsea]

17. I agree

It's fine to point out where most of this came from, but the flaws are so large that I would hesitate to sign on to this thing, especially with Bush & Gates in charge. (Unless JK knows Gates is going to take orders from Baker or something.) Leaving a large advisory contingent in Iraq, and having troops embedded with Iraqis, - keeps the sense of occupation which is the key reason to disengage. We should be securing the borders and doing training only, and only under a UN or NATO umbrella. Iraqis aren't stupid, they ran a military for years. Let Iraqis take the lead and only step in to capture al qaeda or to stop a genocide, should it occur. I don't think this plan is going to work, it doesn't get us far enough out of the picture to let Iraqi's take responsibility for themselves.

[ginnyinWI]

16. Don't miss the excellent post on the JK blog on this.

It's orgainized well into easily understood bits. ;)

[ProSense]

19. The report clearly draws a line:

Bush vs. timetable. Anyone else who tries to debate otherwise looks foolish. Hayden gets it and is advocating a set deadline.

Others do too:

The Baker Report tries to have it both ways on some crucial issues. While it says it is against a large increase in troops, it then says it “could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission.”

And while it echoes John Kerry’s 2004 campaign comment that “the President should state that the United States does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq,” the report in the next sentence adds: “If the Iraqi government were to request a temporary base or bases, then the U.S. government could consider that request as it would in the case of any other government.”

If not for Kerry, the debate would be stay or withdraw someday:

Kerry Says, Others Agree - Part 1 and Part 2