Why Withdrawal Is Unmentionable .... Michael Schwartz

[RedEarth]

Why Withdrawal Is Unmentionable
Staying the Course with James Baker and the Iraq Study Group
By Michael Schwartz

The report of James A. Baker's Iraq Study Group has already become a benchmark for Iraq policy, dominating the print and electronic media for several days after its release, and generating excited commentary by all manner of leadership types from Washington to London to Baghdad. Even if most of the commentary continues to be negative, we can nevertheless look forward to highly publicized policy changes in the near future that rely for their justification on this report, or on one of the several others recently released, or on those currently being prepared by the Pentagon, the White House, and the National Security Council.

This is not, however, good news for those of us who want the U.S. to end its war of conquest in Iraq. Quite the contrary: The ISG report is not an "exit strategy;" it is a new plan for achieving the Bush administration's imperial goals in the Middle East.

The ISG report stands out among the present flurry of re-evaluations as the sole evaluation of the war by a group not beholden to the President; as the only report containing an unadorned negative evaluation of the current situation (vividly captured in the oft-quoted phrase "dire and deteriorating"); and as the only public document with unremitting criticism of the Bush administration's conduct of the war.

It is this very negativity that brings into focus the severely constrained nature of the debate now underway in Washington -- most importantly, the fact that U.S. withdrawal from Iraq (immediate or otherwise) is simply not going to be part of the discussion. Besides explicitly stating that withdrawal is a terrible idea -- "our leaving would make worse" -- the Baker report is built around the idea that the United States will remain in Iraq for a very long time.

To put it bluntly, the ISG is not calling on the Bush administration to abandon its goal of creating a client regime that was supposed to be the key to establishing the U.S. as the dominant power in the Middle East. Quite the contrary. As its report states: "We agree with the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq." If you ignore the text sprinkled with sugar-coated words like "representative government," the report essentially demands that the Iraqi government pursue policies shaped to serve "America's interest and values in the years ahead."

more at the link below....about half way down the page
http://tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=147614

[bemildred]

1. Excellent piece.

Captures the Alice-in-wonderlandy nature of the ISG report perfectly.

[thingfisher]

2. This report serves the purpose of

creating the illusion of examining the situation impartially (right! the impartial James Baker).
I am sick and tired of these ridiculous study groups, blue ribbon commissions, etc. that the government trots out to make it look like it is actually doing something. What ever real decisions are being made and policies implemented they are not being unveiled for public viewing.
I'm sure the powers that be have agendas to be concerned about that have to do with bottom lines and so forth. Soldiers dieing is not a primary concern, it what soldiers do (in their minds). Meanwhile, we must content ourselves with the endless speculation of the pundits about what is likely to occur, how it will happen, who will be involved, blah, blah, blah... until the next big story comes along to get our minds off the topic. Is there still fighting in Afghanistan?