Should Congress endorse the ISG report as Dodd has suggested?

[Clarkie1]

I heard Christopher Dodd suggest this when the report first came out, and would be interested to know if any others have suggested the same. If Congess endorses this report the first day of the new Congress (I know Pelosi has the day planned, but I'm sure she could fit into the schedule something of this magnitude), it will give the report greater political punch. I think it would become tremendously difficult for the President to ignore that kind of mandate, backed by what the American people see as a pragmatic, non-partisan, realistic report by the ISG.

A little about the Institute for Peace, under which the ISG was formed:

"By law, the United States Institute of Peace is governed by a bipartisan Board of Directors. The board is composed of twelve members from outside federal service appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate, and four ex-officio members: the secretary of state (who may designate another Senate-confirmed State Department official), the secretary of defense (who may designate another Senate-confirmed Defense Department official), the president of the National Defense University (who may designate the vice president of the National Defense University), and the president of the Institute (nonvoting). The board is prohibited by law from having more than eight voting members of the same political party."

http://www.usip.org/aboutus/board.html

Although it is bipartisan, it obviously gets flavored by whatever political party is in power in the executive and/or legislative branch.

That being said, the ISG report was obviously not written by G.W. Bush. In my opinion, the Congress should endorse the recommendations of the report. I can think of no better way to put more political pressure on the President right now than to use the poltical capital opponents of the current policy have gained from this report. If Democrats use this bi-partisan report to pound the administration, the administration will have a much harder time arguing they have a coherent, workable plan. WE will be seen as bipartisan realists with a plan (backed by the ISG), and THEY will be seen as extremists with no plan.

Democrats who want a set timeline in stone (and therefore may feel inclined not to endorse the report) need to acknowledge the political reality that it is not going to happen with this administration. However, it is possible to use this report and by endorsing it put real pressure on the administration to change policy and potentially create a better outcome.

Politics is the art of the possible, not the impossible. Now, cast your vote...

[dmosh42]

1. Slanted towards the Neo view

I don't know who put this 'bipartisan' group together, but it DID represent their views, I'm sure. But I don't think it represented what the voters wanted. It did point out flaws in the military plan, but left too much 'wiggle' room for the administration to interpret their way. Too much time is given to carry out these suggestions, and congress would be putting limits on themselves by accepting it as a blueprint for them.

[Hippo_Tron]

2. I haven't read the thing so I'm not going to vote

[unhappycamper]

3. Recommendations 62 & 63 in this report are the important ones.

RECOMMENDATION 62:

• As soon as possible, the U.S. government should provide technical assistance to the Iraqi
government to prepare a draft oil law that defines the rights of regional and local governments
and creates a fiscal and legal framework for investment. Legal clarity is essential to attract -
investment.

• The U.S. government should encourage the Iraqi government to accelerate contracting for the
comprehensive well work-overs in the southern fields needed to increase production, but the
United States should no longer fund such infrastructure projects.

• The U.S. military should work with the Iraqi military and with private security forces to
protect oil infrastructure and contractors. Protective measures could include a program to
improve pipeline security by paying local tribes solely on the basis of throughput (rather than
fixed amounts).

• Metering should be implemented at both ends of the supply line. This step would
immediately improve accountability in the oil sector.

• In conjunction with the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. government should press Iraq
to continue reducing subsidies in the energy sector, instead of providing grant assistance.
Until Iraqis pay market prices for oil products, drastic fuel shortages will remain.

Long Term

Expanding oil production in Iraq over the long term will require creating corporate structures,
establishing management systems, and installing competent managers to plan and oversee an
ambitious list of major oil-field investment projects.

To improve oil-sector performance, the Study Group puts forward the following
recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION 63:

• The United States should encourage investment in Iraq’s oil sector by the international
community and by international energy companies.

• The United States should assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a
commercial enterprise, in order to enhance efficiency, transparency, and accountability.

• To combat corruption, the U.S. government should urge the Iraqi government to post all oil
contracts, volumes, and prices on the Web so that Iraqis and outside observers can track
exports and export revenues.

• The United States should support the World Bank’s efforts to ensure that best practices are
used in contracting. This support involves providing Iraqi officials with contracting templates
and training them in contracting, auditing, and reviewing audits.

• The United States should provide technical assistance to the Ministry of Oil for enhancing
maintenance, improving the payments process, managing cash flows, contracting and
auditing, and updating professional training programs for management and technical
personnel.


I found it interesting that the word "oil" is mentioned 62 times in this report.

[Clarkie1]

9. The Iraqi economy is completely dependent on oil.

I think you might be reading more nefariousness into it than is there.

[TexasProgresive]

4. I read the ISG and voted yes

I am very pessimistic that anything will work to bring the region back to a semblance of stability. But Congress endorsing the ISG report will put BabyBitch's feet to the fire. He is not accepting anything in this report and is hoping that the other "study" groups will give him the report that confirms "staying the course."

There is a possiblity that Gates will not let the Pentagon paint a rosy picture-since he's more PapaBitch's man then the Baby.

I am all for getting our men and women out of Iraq. What scares me is that the whole region is like a house of cards that is vibrating. The fall of the Near and Middle East could well bring about the last war. Then the image of a Mushroom cloud will become fact. The blunt truth is we can not go back to pre-Iraq invasion and we cannot fix what BabyBush broke. What might work is to find a strong man like Saddam but there is no cohesive military or police or governmental structure in Iraq for such a one to take over.

Sorry to be so down but I don't see even a hard way out of this mess much less an easy fix. If you are a praying person then pray. If you are an atheist-well eat drink and be merry- you know the rest.

[barbtries]

5. okay, i'm on page 42 i.e. 42 pages further than the president

and i am ready to comment.

the report makes me nuts, so much destruction have we wrought. but the steps suggested thus far i haven't much quibble with, other than that they so far seem to be dictated from a position, or point of view if you will, of an invited and welcomed overpowering force, when this dreadful war simply has not, realistically speaking, meant that to the people who call that country home.

i've said it before but i am uncomfortable with the term "insurgents" -

insurgent
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin insurgent-, insurgens, present participle of insurgere to rise up, from in- + surgere to rise -- more at SURGE
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party

but i'm working my way through this report and fuck people ! we ought to just face it:

it's spitting in the wind. ain't gonna happen, at least not anytime soon. and why might that be? here's why:

RECOMMENDATION 19: The President and the leadership of his national security team
should remain in close and frequent contact with the Iraqi leadership. These contacts must
convey a clear message: there must be action by the Iraqi government to make substantial
progress toward the achievement of milestones. In public diplomacy, the President should
convey as much detail as possible about the substance of these exchanges in order to keep the
American people, the Iraqi people, and the countries in the region well informed.

then there's this

RECOMMENDATION 22: The President should state that the United States does not seek
permanent military bases in Iraq. 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.
RECOMMENDATION 23: The President should restate that the United States does not seek to
control Iraq’s oil.

isn't it kind of fucking late? is this group - am i so out of it?! - really on board with the bushies' old tried and true just lie when it suits ya? i mean, even if someone could make gw say those things ... after all that has been said and done, who - WHO?! would believe him?!

so personally i really do believe with all my heart that the only way to take even the first step as outlined in this report is going to absolutely require the removal of gw bush from office. and in terms of diplomacy the USA is going to have to practice some honesty. i don't think the world will require that we bow in shame, but certainly i have already apologized to the world after the 2004 election - remember the webpage, "sorry everybody"? i'd go there and cry, seriously.

so it's like the report speaks with some authority and sounds so very reasonable, but then starts suggesting diplomatic, humble, work, on the part of the gw administration! that has got to be a laugh.

i'm also extremely, exceedingly cynical on more than a couple of points. which may be explained to my satisfaction with like another 24 straight hours of web surfing. in a nutshell, daddy-o's buddy swoops in to save the day? i am so over trusting any fucking body associated with the bushies. halfway through and not a word about torture or detention and i don't see any goodwill accruing to the US military otherwise. Haven't yet observed a specific plan for restoring the infrastructure WE took out, let alone a single hint that WE HAD NO RIGHT, and no reason but the hubris greed and warmongering of a rogue administration run by two sick puppies.

the scope, the immensity of the tragedy that has been visited upon iraq...it is hard, for me to read. and the words so carefully chosen - the better to save face with - are so, so weak, when you consider: almost 3000 americans, up to 650,000 iraqis , $10 million bat mjitzvahs and cheney's company's "no bid contracts," which our great-grandchildren will be paying for, it's like - like the emperor has no clothes, or why is everybody ignoring the elephant in the living room, you know?

Iraqi amnesty proposals must not be undercut in Washington by
either the executive or the legislative branch. from the "war is peace" decider?

i like - very much - involving the rest of the civilized world (at this point in time perceived pretty far and wide as more civilized than the US i'll bet)in the demilitarization - but the whole business of war is so stupid when you get down to it isnt it. so stupid, so sad. HATE the part about sending more of our precious young over there.

Even after the United States has moved all combat brigades
out of Iraq, we would maintain a considerable military presence in the region....

okay, so if you ask me nothing will change if this the approach. i agree that if congress passes it, it might put gw in a bad light politically, but he doesn't care! he is delusional, mentally ill, and a lame duck for whom every utterance is a campaign. neither sense nor sentiment moves him.

remember when the gas prices were skyrocketing? and the press and supposedly the people were kind of hounding the man to - ummmmm......LEAD!, yeah that's the ticket. so he mumbles into a microphone, "Don't drive so much." and the thing is people are dying like flies. every death is one death too many. i know i won't get my way, but i will still weigh in with what it is: the bush administration out of power, the US out of the war in Iraq.

[kentuck]

6. No. They should endorse nothing until further study...

and until they have read the report.

[Boo Boo]

7. It's better than nothing. They should endorse.

If Congress endorses the report it ratchets up the pressure on Bush, and keeps the report right in his face. The current policy must end, and this is a way to move the ball forward. It would certainly help if Republicans vote for it too, of course. If Bush managed to strong arm enough Repubs into not voting for it, he could portray it as a "partisan issue." In that case it might be better not to hold the vote.

[Clarkie1]

8. Those of you voting no, please consider this!

"White House now HOSTILE to Iraq report"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2891099&mesg_id=2891099

[unkachuck]

10. no....

....the Dems should pay polite lip-service to it but give no formal endorsement and start developing a strategy to force bushco out of Iraq asap....does anyone truly believe bushco will leave voluntarily without controlling most of the oil?....this is a tar-baby destined for the next Dem prez....

....I mainly dislike the ISG report because it seems to be designed to give cover to the repugs....now that these rats are wanting to abandon the sinking USS Bushco, I don't feel we need to be tossing them a life-preserver....

....the ISG report doesn't go into the WHO and WHY we're dealing with a failed policy and situation in Iraq....that would be like having a relative murdered and the police suggesting that you not worry about WHO and WHY but just focus on the inheritance and bury the deceased....

....for me, there is only one solution....declare victory and get out of Iraq NOW!!....are we still in Iraq? WHY?