[Previous entry: "Chris Stewart vs the StarTribune"] [Next entry: "Kieth Ellison's vote"]
12/10/2006: "Some Thoughts about the Commission Report On Iraq by Kenneth Tilsen"
Kenneth Tilsen
Some Thoughts about the Commission Report On Iraq
December 8, 2007
Not quite as bad as I thought it would be but what does it really say?
Lets look at the good the bad and the ugly and some stuff in between.
The Good- It spells out in detail the abject failure of the present policies and disaster we have created in Iraq. It identifies the absolute lies that we been told about the level of violence and it castigates the administration for hiding the cost of the war and congress for doing nothing about it. It makes it clear that a political solution is the only hope and that a military solution can never be achieved.
Probably the most important good proposal it puts forth is that the mission of the military be immediately changed. No more direct search and destroy missions and deliberate killing of Iraqis. Protect our enclaves as you get out, and -o yah -train and teach the Iraqi army and police how to be a good democratic army and police force. If adopted it should save lives, both American and Iraqi. It’s about 2 years late but shows they are learning.
It is also good that we recognize that the neighboring countries have a stake in the outcome and a role to play, but I can not conceive of this administration having anyone around who could handle the required tasks. The real attitude of the Bush administration is probably that this proposal is treason.
It is important that the report recognizes that “resolving the Israel-Palestine problem” is critical to resolving the Middle-East mess. It is not really true that the Bush administration has been disengaged from the problem. It is a large part of the problem. It has been available to obstruct and veto any attempt of the world community to deal with the genocidal acts of Israel against the people of Palestine. It continues to fund and supply weapons to Israel including anti-personnel weapons in probable violation of international law. It will be prepared to move forward in this area when it decides to put Jimmy Carter in charge of Israel policy and negotiation.
The Bad- Have you heard the proposal that Iraq’s new freely elected independent government must privatize its oil resources in order to continue to receive U.S. support. I suppose if the U.S. controlled the oil resources then competing Iraqi groups could stop arguing about it. But how did this get into the report and why has the media, except for Democracy Now, ignored it. The answer is really very simple. Co-chair James Baker, the hard-headed realist, non-ideologue has spent his whole life working for Big Oil. That is what he has always been about. And if indeed there were anyone on the commission who thought this was a bad idea, then the cooperative spirit of comradeship that we are told was so important to the commission would have made it impolite to raise an objection. Each must have recognized that as far as Chairman Baker was concerned, privatizing oil was the most important proposal before the group. And who in the major media wants to call attention to this non-significant side issue.
The Ugly –On the most critical concern of all-When will the troops come home?-the commission suddenly became tongue-tied and inarticulate. Sometime around the beginning of 2008….baring unforeseen circumstances. What does that mean?
The logic of the report leads inevitably to the conclusion that the troops should begin coming home now and all combat troops should be out of Iraq within the next 12 months. It could be done faster but I could live with that.
But the real problem is unforeseen circumstances. What does that mean? Most of the media pundits treat it to be identical to “subject to conditions on the ground” That, of course, makes the proposal totally meaningless.
But the report states that that the conditions on the ground are bad and getting worse. Clearly that can not be unforeseen. Are they referring to the unforeseen circumstances such as when the levies broke in New Orleans? All the experts had been saying for years that it would happen but the President said it was “unforeseen.” Did not Ms Rice proclaim that no-one could have foreseen that airplanes could be used as weapons to fly into a building? Of course, many security types here and abroad spoke and wrote about that possibility long before the attack on the Trade Center. There are many thousands of accidents every day. If there is an accident in front of your house is that an unforeseen event? I don’t know the answer and I don’t think that anyone else does either. I think the commission just took a pass. If those pundits who equate “unforeseen events” with “conditions on the ground” are right, then we ought to burn the report and pound a flaming stake in the heart of every commission member,