Iraq Study Group
Original post made by Jag Singh on Dec 9, 2006
on Dec 9, 2006 at 2:21 pm
I partially agree with you (but only partially). The ISG IS crazy to suggest that there should be an increase in training forces, while subtracting combat forces. How is it possible to protect the trainers, when armored protection/reaction is removed?
In terms of oil, your central point, Iraq is full of oil. Proven reserves, using older methods, show about 110 Bb. That would make it about the second or third largest proven pool. However, more modern methods suggest that Iraq is floating on a pool of oil. If international oil companies are allowed to drill deep enough, even the Sunnis will be happy.
The Iraq war was not blood for oil, but oil IS a central issue in the middle East. The hope for Iraq is that the international companies are allowed to come in and discover the immense riches that belong to Iraq. We would all be better for it.
If Iraq can become a reasonable democracy, it will prosper in ways it can, currently, barely imagine.
Jag, as far as I can tell you hate Bush, and you hate Jews. That's your business, but Iraq's future will be far better off by embracing democracy, than by bowing down to you and yours (e.g. Saddam).
on Dec 9, 2006 at 7:13 pm
The report IS a scathing indictment of the failed Bush policy. That's undeniable, so the longer that the Prez avoids it, the worse he looks. I think he knows, but doesn't want to tip his hand.
He's trying to be too clever (not an easy thing for him, IMO), instead of "fessing up" and getting our troops out of that seething cauldron.
Also, it's an interesting note that of the members of the commission that authored the repost, not even one was against the war for any reason, even on principle, before being named to the commission. That gives what they say more weight, but also might be one reason why the report is not more harsh in its conclusions or recommendations.
They should have had some pure anti-war people in there.