Iraq study group report

I sat down for 15 minutes this morning to read the report of the Iraq Study Group. I can't be sure, but chances are that I have read it in more detail than our president has. The New York Times has the basic documents.

Can't argue with the report as far as it goes. As I predicted in an earlier post, the basic components are gradual unconditional withdrawal of US forces and a regional conference of Iraq's neighbors. I think, however, that the report does not go quite far enough. First, it envisions keeping a large number of US troops in Iraq after 2008 supporting and training Iraqi troops and fighting al Qaeda. I think our goal should be a minimum number of special forces "over the horizon" that can deal with al Qaeda if it remains a problem. Second, the plan is too US-centered. The US is the country that provides training and security in this plan, the US calls the international conference, the US cajoles Iran and Syria to participate. I think we can hand these responsibilities largely to the countries of the region with the US, UN, and EU providing support in the background. There's no reason, for example, that Egyptian and other troops cannot provide training for Iraqi forces once US troops are out. And the Arab League is already talking about internal reconciliation and external stability; let them carry the ball.

In the end, I fear that the report's authors are - intentionally or not - making a proposal that ratifies the imperial ambition that underlay the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq in the first place. We need troops in the region to protect oil supplies, confront Iran, and protect Israel. We had almost no presence in the region until 1990. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait gave us the pretext for establishing permanent bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Gulf States. Now we have the pretext for permanent bases in Iraq. If we don't want to get dragged into a permanent war in the Middle East, someone needs to pull the plug on this, fast.