MSNBC - Iraq Study Group executive summary excerpts ~ Send in more troops before we leave?

[mzmolly]

Hope this isn't a dupe, I didn't see this when I checked?

On redeployment and withdrawal

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 on the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq. At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid reaction and special operations teams and in training, equipping, advising, force protection and search and rescue. Intelligence and support efforts would continue. A vital mission of those rapid reaction and special operations forces would be to undertake strikes against al Qaeda in Iraq.

On Iran and Syria

Report says: 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 issue of Iran's nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus German. Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents and terrorists in and out of Iraq.

The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability. There must be renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria and President Bush's June 2002 commitment to a two state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment must include direct talks with, by and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israelis right to exist) and Syria. As the United States develops its approach toward Iraq and the Middle East, the United States should provide additional political, economic and military support for Afghanistan including resources that might become available as combat forces are moved out of Iraq.

More from the report

"The Iraqi government should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi army brigades. While this process is under way and to facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, embedded in and supporting Iraqi army units. As these actions proceed, U.S. combat forces could begin to move out of Iraq.”

So they want to send in more troops and then pull out? How does that make sense?

OOPS, forgot the link > LINKY

[tridim]

1. Their plan is too complex

Just pull out now. Send in the transports, load them up and bring everyone home. It's the only way.

[mzmolly]

2. I agree, it sounds like political cover to me?

Let's cover Bush's ass by gaining some stability, and when the Dems take over in 2008, we'll blame them for the chaos after troop withdrawal?

[TahitiNut]

5. Yup. How about a "shock and awe" redeployment?

If they can go in fast, they can get out fast.

[mzmolly]

8. That "shock and awe" thing has worked so well in the past.

:sarcasm:

[bryant69]

3. Perhaps the theory is a shock ot the system?

Change the tenor of the battlefield by giving the insurgents one good shock to the system and hope that's enough to give the iraqi police a chance.

I don't know; that doesn't make all that much sense, now that I think about it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mzmolly]

4. These people have been through so much, I don't think they are easilly

shocked. ;)

[Junkdrawer]

6. The Dubya / McCain plan with bipartisan window dressing...

Does this surprise anyone? :shrug:

[mzmolly]

14. Seems that way.

Nope, not surprised.

[H2O Man]

7. This is what

the Saudis are advocating. They are pressuring the administration to "deal" with Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army before the US "reduces" forces. This is extremely dangerous.

[mzmolly]

9. Somehow, I am not surprised.

Thanks for sharing this. It seems that what the Saudis want, the Saudis get, from this administration?

[H2O Man]

10. There is a concern

that the Persian Gulf will be Persian; this concern is shared by the Saudis and the Cheneyites.

[mzmolly]

11. Ah, an effort towards a bit o' ethnic cleansing

perhaps?

[H2O Man]

12. When the Saudis

called VP Cheney to visit, it was to discuss their concerns that the Iranian-backed Shi'ites would engage in the "ethnic cleansing" and butcher Sunnis. What I would suggest to DUers is to consider the "worst case scenario." That is where Bush and Cheney have brought the world to the brink of. The world is in a very dangerous place right now. This ISG seems to recognize that, although there is good reason to believe they do not have any good plan to move us away from that brink. We are in a handful of boats, heading for Niagra Falls, and the "guides" are arguing about who gets what bag of chips.

[mzmolly]

13. The suggestion "there is no GOOD option" comes to mind.

The only options appear to be "bad and worse?" Not that those with a brain didn't see this coming, but of course many would rather they were wrong than be in the situation we are in today. We'll pay the price Bush's follies for generations to come. Your Niagara Falls analogy is, unfortunately an excellent one it seems.