Bram: Probably true. The reason I didn't include them was because they weren't directly related to "success" in Iraq. Ditto for a few of the others. I just wanted to focus on Iraq in this post.

Here's a benchmark:

How many miles-per-gallon of US Soldiers' blood does your SUV get?

Obviously these are just guesses on my part, though Bush himself has already given short shrift to the idea of talks with Syria and Iran

Why shouldn't he give short shrift to it? Kevin, these ideas were suggested by a commission with SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR on it who is certainly no foreign policy expert. It's simply ridiculous to even listen to what the commission proposes since the commission members are so ignorant of foreign policy. If they wanted to be taken seriously they should've had some experts like conservative Williams Kristol or liberal Martin Peretz on it.

Thanks Kevin. My cautious optimism lasted less than 24 hours. Which would you choose? Try adopting even half of these proposals, a monumental task for a competent administration? Or wait six months for the media to turn their attention towards the 2008 Presidential Extravaganza of Monumental Importantness, and slip out the back door?

Remember, you have to think like Bush to answer this question properly.

Expect lots of weasel words but not much serious action.

Golly, you could have made this prediction back in 2000...

BTW, after "nina"'s loony rants, it's almost refreshing to see the Chinese spammer is back messing up your threads. Assuming you're watching, Kevin, has the "nina" incident convinced your bosses that their tightwad attitude toward these threads are decreasing the value of your blog?

Kevin - Can you explain the linkage between the Iraq War and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?

The Palestinian issue has nothing to do with the Iraq War.

The Palestinian issue has nothing to do with the Iraq War.

Yeah, perception throughout the Arab world that the US is doing the heavy lifting for Israel hasn't complicated matters for the US one little bit.

Oh, wait...

Smarter trolls, please.

BTW, for the record, y'all know the spammer troll has hijacked my handle on previous threads. I trust y'all know which ones I didn't write.

What?

Still trying to solve the Middle East crisis?
Even after Bush fucked things up beyond all repair?

Wow...

Suggestion:

Worry about global warming instead.

When you Americans prove you can stop fucking up the atmosphere, then you can talk about fixing other countries and regions of the world.

Until then... you have all the moral authority of a young cowboy snorting cocaine and slurping cheap beer.

In other words: STFU AMERICAN!

The Palestinian issue has nothing to do with the Iraq War.

Actually, I totally agree. The road to Jerusalem is not through Baghdad, or vise versa. It's just something the Sheiks and Kings are required to bring up when they have "summits" with western leaders.

"Yes, yes, blow up our neighbors...threaten our enemies, attack from our bases... Just make sure you pay lip service to the palestine issue once in a while."

A regional conference without the US might have some advantages.

Restart the Israeli-Palestinian peace process: Hah!

Increase U.S. economic assistance. Include more international participation: More bribes and help get others to supply bribes. Definitely.

I've been thinking about withdrawing troops.

It might take a year if done by the text book, but Iraq has a unique advantage: the whole west of the country is a wide-open empty desert. US forces could withdraw to a rallying point in the desert fairly precipitately, then make a more stately progress into Jordan.

I think the whole process of evacuation could be accomplished in five or six weeks.

Al: "If they wanted to be taken seriously they should've had some experts like conservative Williams Kristol or liberal Martin Peretz on it."

Yeah, experts: they've been batting 1000 so far!

Actually, for those interested in the ways BushCo defeated the commission before they even got out of the gate, read Sidney Blumenthal in last night's Salon.

Again, the question in all these discussions has to be, what is the proper Congressional stance. There's no point asking what Bush "ought" to do; he's like a weather event, generally malign and always impervious to reason.

Given that Bush is rejecting the ISG's key recommendations, and is being portrayed as doing so in the press, I'd say the proper Democratic/Congressional stance is to embrace the ISG's recommendations but say they don't go far enough in terms of mandating timetables and consequences. Then they can start to set some mandatory goals of their own, and implement budget cutoffs to get those things done. And the President will be seen to be at fault, for having rejected the ISG's recommendations and continuing to deny reality.

Other than nearly-dead WASPs past the point of ambition for elective office, is there anyone in America who has any interest in restarting Israeli-Palestinian negotiations? I assure you, that isn't part of the platform of any party that is actually trying to win elections.

Let me put it another way, when Democrats like Martin Peretz attack James Baker as an anti-Semite for putting pressure on Israel to negotiate, will Democrats like Kevin Drum defend Baker? Of course not. So there's no one interested enough in this issue to make it happen.

Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of restarting Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. I just want to point out that neither is anyone else.

I hate to say this, but I think Michael Savage's reminder that James Baker's firm has the Sauds as a client needs further examination in its effect on the ISG's recommendations.

charlie's right, bush won't come clean on war appropriations any more than an enron executive would willingly come clean on one of their dirty schemes.

that's what the congressional subpoena is for.

"The Palestinian issue has nothing to do with the Iraq War."

Er, sorry. Israel is the elephant in the Iraq war room... literally 'conspicuous in it's absence'

EVERYTHING in the Middle East has to do with Israel.

when Democrats like Martin Peretz attack James Baker as an anti-Semite for putting pressure on Israel to negotiate, will Democrats like Kevin Drum defend Baker?

Yes.

This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

Bush has already said he won't talk to Syria and Iran. The regional conference is a possibility, but without Syria and Iran it's probably little more than fig leaf.

the regional conference will happen, and Iran and Syria will be there. The idea behind the recommendation is for Bushco to sit down "behind the scenes" with Iran and Syria and a few other key players and work out some kind of deal. I suspect that the ISG already has the outlines of the deal in their pockets -- they've talked to both Syria and Iran, and know what their positions are.

The "deal", of course, is all sorts of promises from Iran and Syria in exchange for the withdrawal of US troops. By the time we "realize" that Syria is still funding Hezbollah, and Iran is still funding the Badr Corps, the momentum for continued US disengagement from Iraq will be irresistable.

I mean, NO SANE PERSON thinks that either Iran or Syria is going to do what the ISG report says they should do. So, assuming that Baker and Hamilton are sane, there has to be another rationale for their recommendations...

when Democrats like Martin Peretz attack James Baker as an anti-Semite for putting pressure on Israel to negotiate, will Democrats like Kevin Drum defend Baker?

hopefully, Drum will just call Peretz a moron, and let it go at that. Baker isn't anti-semitic, he's pro-Cold-Hard-Saudi-Cash in his pocket...and that's the key difference.

I suggest you look up the def of anti-semite.

You'll find that it means a person who disgrees with Peretz.

Peretz is a moron. Though I normally use less restrained language than that when he's the topic of conversation.

OK?

As far as Recommendations 13-17, Osama bin Laden himself has said that, “America will not live in peace until peace reigns in Palestine. But, hey, why would we want to understand what our enemies are really saying?

By the way, has anyone seen that Roadmap to Peace?

The Onion has an additional set of benchmarks from the ISG Report:

Implement phased withdrawal of all media access

Rapidly train Iraqi security forces in use of butterfly knives

Try to meet insurgents halfway by burning own effigies of Bush

Promote Smithfield Ham–sponsored "Hey, America, What's Your Exit Strategy?" contest

Spend a weekend researching the customs and history of the Iraqi people

Stop half-assing USO shows

Teach Iraqis about ultimate futility of sectarian violence by pointing out that, Shiite or Sunni, they all look alike anyway

Move operations over to another country that will embrace democracy more readily

Windhorse:

OMG that's funny ... The futility of sectarian conflict because they all look alike anyway ...

brooksfoe:

Agreed. Especially since McCain's going to stake out the opposite, more-troops option (which isn't likely), leaving Bush stuck in the middle. Dems should push the ISG recommendations wherever they differ from Bush's, as an answer to McCain doing the same thing from the right.

This helps to put a damper on the Dolschtosslegende before it even gets started ...

Bob

William Kristol is a member of that phalanx of AEI/PNACnuts that dreamt up this horrible disaster. He has zero foreign affairs or military experience, is pure academic politics and spin-slime who smarms his way into the media because idiots are willing to listen to his drivel, and neocons keep him afloat at the Standard.

Beyond that, the best I can work out that ISG offered this plan as a package is that they recognize the odds of putting everything right are vanishingly slim, and this offers the US (and Republicans) their best chance of extracting from this disaster, minimizing the longer-term damage to the US (and Republicans), and leaving the egg on the chump on Penn Ave rather than the party when he departs the scene in 2 years.

Chimp isn't playing along with this game, so, in November 2008, watch to see the Republicans get thumped wickedly as long as the Dems do their job well and a lot more cleanly than the last 6 years of Republican cronyism, corruption and venal graft.

Personally I'd prefer if minimizing the loss of life and limb was at the top of the agenda but I am no politician.

In re: 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."
Inasmuch as 4 of these "enduring" or "permanent" bases are well on their way to completion, has Junior already gotten a "request" from "my guy", Maliki? This is where the new Congress, particularly the various Committees and Subcommittees who are charged with reviewing Pentagon spending requests for the Iraq debacle should develop some "calcium in the backbone", and explicity bar future funding for these bases, just closing the fucking things down, as the longer they remain the more protracted will be the insurrection, and peace in Iraq will continue to remain elusive.

"has anyone seen that Roadmap to Peace?"

No, I tried to rent the DVD at the video store, but it was out. Isn't that the one with Mel Gibson playing the Isreali Prime Minister and Anthony Hopkins reprising his Hannibal Lechter role as the leader of the Palestinians? Heard that Michael Richards was hilarious as Shrub. Brian Dennehy as Cheney was strong, but Whoopi playing Condi, stole the show.

I just wanted to focus on Iraq in this post. - Kevin

See that's your problem, all America really want to know is...Who's Mary Cheney's Baby's Daddy

(this is really elmo, just being me, great post Kevin)

Dems should push for adoption of the ISG report precisely because Bush won't follow it. When Republicans later try to pin this disastrous war on Democrats, it'll be another clear cut distinction.

What Bush will do with the ISG recommendations is a secondary question; the primary one being, Do the neocons still run this administration?

Gates said some incredible things during his confirmation (including an acknowledgement that Israel is a nuclear state). And he stands for engaging Iran and Syria. There are reports that Condi has made a turn to her former bosses, the Bush 41 team. But Cheney and Rove are still the 800-pound gorillas (almost literally). Who among them wins? Bush himself is a non-entity, the question is who will have control of his strings.

I am going to post this comment, as I e-mailed Kevin, and the "editors" e-mail address at WM, until they get the point.

All bloggers here, if you link to Political Animal, please consider delinking until WM ponies up for an anti-spam comments system. The action may only be symbolic, but it is an action.

Who is this "Bush" person of which you speak? Does he have any relevance to the future, or even the present?

I hate bitch ass, weak, cut and pasting, pre-mature ejaculating, trolls...

...because they're weak, pussy ass chickenhawks. And I hate me some chickenhawks.

So comments are back on? Did WaMo turn them off this morning? Have there been any fixes, or did y'all just delete "nina"'s spam posts, or merely hoped he/she/it would lose interest and go away? (Now there's a way to deal with a denial-of-service attack!)

What gives?

Perhaps this crew could help:

Alan: Hello.

Noel: Hello.

Alan: Well, last week we showed you how to become a gynaecologist. And this week on 'How to do it' we're going to show you how to play the flute, how to split an atom, how to construct a box girder bridge, how to irrigate the Sahara Desert and make vast new areas of land cultivatable, but first, here's Jackie to tell you all how to rid the world of all known diseases.

Jackie: Hello, Alan.

Alan: Hello, Jackie.

Jackie: Well, first of all become a doctor and discover a marvellous cure for something, and then, when the medical profession really starts to take notice of you, you can jolly well tell them what to do and make sure they get everything right so there'll never be any diseases ever again.

Alan: Thanks, Jackie. Great idea. How to play the flute. (picking up a flute) Well here we are. You blow there and you move your fingers up and down here.

Noel: Great, great, Alan. Well, next week we'Ll be showing you how black and white people can live together in peace and harmony, and Alan will be over in Moscow showing us how to reconcile the Russians and the Chinese. So, until next week, cheerio.

Alan: Bye.

Jackie: Bye.

If they wanted to be taken seriously they should've had some experts like conservative Williams Kristol or liberal Martin Peretz on it.

Actually, if you look in the back pages of the report, you'll see that they DID seek the oh-so-informed and laser-bright counsel of smiling Billy Kristol. Any group that still takes that lying asshole seriously has some deep, deep problems.

After Dr. Alan finds the marvelous cure for the world, he can hang up his whites and head off to Wall Street, where he can earn 10 fold more and really be considered a success.

Alan: Thanks, Jackie. Great idea. How to play the flute. (picking up a flute) Well here we are. You blow there and you move your fingers up and down here.

Great bit, very funny.

Although learning to play the flue in one sitting is probably a damn sight easier and more likely than fixing Iraq's problems in the short term.

"Bush has already said he won't talk to Syria and Iran."

When the time comes for Bush to write the memoir of his presidency, he'll have to spend a lengthy chapter -- or, I would suggest, the entire book -- explaining why he habitually chose this odd stance of never negotiating with enemies. I doubt he will explain it, though; Bush has a tendency to treat his own thought process as being obvious, which is why he sounds irritated whenever anyone questions him and answers as if lecturing a kindergartener.

Sure. Negotiate with the two nations next to Iraq that have nothing to gain with Iraq becoming a strong democracy, and everything to gain if it fails.

Next up: Negotiating with Mussolini to help get Hitler out of Europe.

As for Israel, they've been running a "peace process" there for a generation, through many U.S. presidents of both parties (including Clinton, the Democratic God of Foreign Policy) and many Israeli leaders.

You can't negotiate when the baseline position of one side is the destruction of the other side. But I have no doubt the "process" will continue, with the same results, through at least another generation.

Yes, Windhorse, except those chimneys can be hard on the lungs.

When the time comes for Bush to write the memoir of his presidency, he'll have to spend a lengthy chapter -- or, I would suggest, the entire book -- explaining why he habitually chose this odd stance of never negotiating with enemies. I doubt he will explain it, though; Bush has a tendency to treat his own thought process as being obvious, which is why he sounds irritated whenever anyone questions him and answers as if lecturing a kindergartener.

List all the times in history when negotiations during war with an undefeated enemy resulted in lasting peace (ref: "Danegeld.") You'd think we'd have learned something from being led down that primrose path in Vietnam.

A denial of service attack that uses hijacked screen names of "regular" commenters is obviously an inside job -- done by regulars who follow the discussions here in order to force the hand of WM to change policies. If this is true, such efforts are doing more harm than good.

JS:

Is there any mechanism where an automated spam system can "pick" names off a comment board and use them? Otherwise, you might be right, and somebody may be doing this manually.

Yes, Windhorse, except those chimneys can be hard on the lungs.

[red-faced] True, git, but here in Michigan we believe in playing an instrument worthy of sturdy, northern people no matter what the cost in lightness of tone or black lung disease.

And if you think embouchure is difficult with a flute....

I think in these posts, you're missing what the point of the ISG was, and all that it ever could have been at this time

Where we've been for several years is no formal administration acknowledgment of the mess and no majority party acknowledgment of any possibility of a single troop actually leaving for good in any knowable time period.

Now ISG has gotten us past that, and Bush taking the report in hand and saying all of it is essentially valid as a part of the formal discourse in his office, is huge

The dynamics up to now have been that no troop has left for good
If even a small group were to truly, permanently leave, this then becomes phase 2 if you will of the transformation of national consciousness on the situation

Bush doesn't need to at this point agree to much of a withdrawal, and the ISG didn't need to ask for much, and it didn't suit the dynamics of the moment for them to do so

We're kabuki-dancing, yes, but now slowly doing the turn on the dance floor, one step of convincing at a time

It may well be that there are huge numbers of troops there when Bush leaves office, including combat, but what we can hope for is an established pattern of drawdown, redeployment and transfer of responsibility to Iraqis and regional players ... shifting out of the police on the beat role and into the swat team role for US forces

Along with that will be a national consensus about what our role is there, which is neither disengaged, nor over-engaged, but appropriately engaged

If that consensus about a goal in strategic posture matches what the regional contact group and Iraqi sectarian leaders themselves want and hammer out (in the face of a clearly stated US intention not to stay and run the show unilaterally as up to now) and what Islamic peoples everywhere see as legitimate, then we have arrived at a new day in security policy

This is just one small step, but not insignificant

harry, if an automated system were doing this it is unlikely that the screen names it used would have been of posters who seem to have specific long-running vendettas going (such as Pale Rider and rmck1). Unless you were to assume a very sophisticated automated system.

Where we've been for several years is no formal administration acknowledgment of the mess...

Now ISG has gotten us past that...

I think that is exactly right. The value of the ISG report lies not in its detailed recommendations (which are way overdesigned and overdone), but in that it is the first time that an august bipartisan body has pronounced "the course" as a failure and exposed Bush's persistence at it as stupidity.

We're kabuki-dancing, yes, but now slowly doing the turn on the dance floor, one step of convincing at a time

jim, that's a great assessment. One of the U.K. papers agrees and refers to the report as "an emphatic statement of the obvious" that's necessary because the obvious has been so clouded by politically-skewed description from the administration.

It boils down to: the first step is admitting you have a problem, and the Baker Study is an intervention to help Bush do just that.

JS:

Well, for the record I have no vendetta against Pale Rider, long-term or otherwise. Flamewars happen. *shrug* It's just a chemistry issue between certain individuals, and I agree that it's regrettable and further, apologize for my role in it.

It's a weakness in my personality to respond to stuff that ticks me off that would be better off ignored. I can't speak for Pale about it, but I'd imagine he feels somewhat similarly. Again, I don't hold it against him; ordinarily he's an excellent contributor here.

Your theory doesn't work because there have all sorts of nasty trolls here who spend a little while lurking and learn the scorecard quickly and thus how to antagonize regulars. Doesn't take a long-timer to do what was done to Pale, trex, Gregory, Disputo Global Citizen, CFShep, myself and others in the spoofing department.

Bob

I can't speak for Pale about it, but I'd imagine he feels somewhat similarly.

No I don't; each and every time I try to ignore you, you attack me and I wish you would leave me alone.

I can guarantee the group that if "Bob" would stop trying to do things such as put it out to the group that I was the one responsible for spamming the threads with anti-semitic literature in order to force moderation on the blog, there wouldn't be any 'vendetta' or 'flame war' to speak of.

However, "Bob" can't stop talking about me when I am not around and he can't stop trying to refer to things that I have done.

One would think that a moderator would be able to put a stop to that, and I would gladly welcome that moderation in an attempt to get "Bob" to leave me alone.

All right guys - Let's make it High Noon next Tuesday at some designated Howard Johnsons on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

I will second Pale.

Who will second rcmk1, Bob?

Mace of the historic type for Bob or perhaps he could just blow harder, giant feather for Pale - 10 paces and turn.

May Whomever up or out there, take pity of your souls.

"Pale":

That post is so unreasonable I don't believe Pale Rider wrote it.

I've apologized to you repeatedly and repudiated in several places the idea that the attack was an inside job.

There's really nothing more left to say about it.

Bob

One point:

13-17 Restart the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Bush has never shown any interest in this.

How does he get away with this? And more importantly, isn't that proof that Condoleeza Rice should have resigned on the same day as Donald Rumsfeld?

I think we won't really know how GW is going to react to the ISG report until he can spend a couple more weekends at Camp David 'consulting' with Condi...

That post is so unreasonable I don't believe Pale Rider wrote it.

I did write it. Do you want me to write it the way that "Norman" would write it?

Or would you just start leaving me alone now?

Seriously, I want nothing to do with you or with this endless circle jerk you want to play.

Live by the sword...

The favorite technique around here when dealing with opposition is to start spraying fake posts around under their names. Only a matter of time before you turned it on each other.

"Pale":

The blame for bringing up your name goes to JS, who was propogating the idea that the attack was an inside job, based on the idea that Pale Rider and I have a vendetta.

So I rebutted both accusations, to set the record straight.

Bob

"Pale."

Simple. Don't play it.

Bob

I guess I get to be the one who is harrassed off the blog today.

The best way not to "die" by the sword is to put it down and walk away, so that's what I'm going to do.

Kevin,

You don't say whether you take any of the ISG's recommendations seriously. Do you?

I could belabor the idiocy involved in Baker's advice to throw Israel overboard in the hope of buying Syrian cooperation, but why bother? I doubt that you, or very many members of Congress for that matter, take that point seriously, either.

"Pale":

Or you could just have a normal conversation about issues, and recognize when somebody was attempting for the record to bury the hatchet.

Another way not to "die by the sword" is to simply put the sword down and go about your other business.

These are public comments. Anyone is entitled to respond to them.

All you have a right to request is a baseline civility.

Bob

When the time comes for Bush to write the memoir of his presidency

I think yhou have to read one before you can write one...

Global:

Hey ... Bush has been Library Man over the last year or so. He was in a contest with Rove over how many books they could read over the year.

Bush apparently has been digging into presidental bios and works of history.

Whether he could manage more than a C+ on a blue book exam to explicate or synthesize their ideas is a different question entirely, though.

Bob

Goodnight Moon and My Pet Goat don't count.

Nor does that book my son bought from Scholastic in second grade Ask Me Anything About the Presidents. (There was my first clue he would grow up to be a doctoral candidate in history, now that I think about it.

As for Israel, they've been running a "peace process" there for a generation, through many U.S. presidents of both parties (including Clinton, the Democratic God of Foreign Policy) and many Israeli leaders. You can't negotiate when the baseline position of one side is the destruction of the other side.

Sure you can. To use the example of Israel above, President Carter oversaw negotiations between Sadat's Egypt and Begin's Israel which resulted the signing of a peace between those two enemies at the Camp David accords, even though Egypt's baseline position had been the complete destruction of Israel.

Stefan: Jimmy Carter wrote a wonderful book entitled Talking Peace about ten years ago. It was written for middle-school and high-school aged kids. My son was 12 or 13 at the time and he read the review in the NY Times book review and bought it with his own money, then mailed it to the Carter Center for the President to sign. All three kids read the words off the pages. I'm sure the President would be pleased to know that that book is ragged and dog-eared and well-read, rather than enshrined somewhere.

Goodnight Moon and My Pet Goat don't count.

Hey now, my 5 year old loved having Goodnight Moon read to him...

But your 5-year-old doesn't have the nuclear football!

celillious:

They just nominated Ann Coulter for the Nobel Prize in Literature.

Laugh at that, instead :)

Bob

Jesus, these mods are quick. They deleted the troll before my snark could parse as a response :(

Bob

I think yhou have to read one before you can write one...

Believe me, I put the post-White House memoir from Bush in the same category of future developments as the flying car and the robot sex partner.

In theory, it could happen.

Grumpy:

Hey, if OJ can write a book ... or Amy Fisher for that matter :)

It's all in the ghostwriters.

Bob