Iraq Study Group Report
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
The Iraq Study Group Report: The Way Forward – A New Approach,1 is the report given by the Iraq Study Group, as mandated by the United States Congress. It is an assessment of the state of the war in Iraq as of December 6, 2006, when the ISG released the report to the public on the Internet and as a published book.[1]
The report called the situation in Iraq "grave and deteriorating"[2]. It goes on to recommend that U.S. troops end combat operations in Iraq and train Iraqi troops.[3] However, the report does not endorse a complete removal of troops from Iraq by any given date.[4]
You can download the Iraq Study Group's final official report from the U.S. Institute of Peace's Web site.
Contents |
[edit] Scope and task
The U.S. government formed the Research Group under the auspices of bipartisanship due to growing concern from officials about hostilities in Iraq and possible civil war. Members of the Study Group and staff spoke with officials from various governments, seeking their views regarding the state of Iraq.
As a matter of political expediency, the group did not assign blame or causality for the state of Iraq's security, by focus on the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Occupation of Iraq, or subsequent actions taken by the U.S. Military. (It does lay blame with Al Qaeda as a destabilizing actor.) It researched and outlined problems in Iraq, how such problems relate to each other, and what steps could be taken to fix the problems.
[edit] Pre-release expectations
The public expected the ISG to present two overall, alternative policies in their report. The first option, "Redeploy and Contain," would call for the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops to bases near Iraq where they could be redeployed against new threats in the region.[5] Stability First would call for maintaining a presence in Baghdad and encouraging insurgents to enter the political arena, while asking Iran and Syria, Iraq's neighbors, for help ending the fighting.[5][6]
According to The New York Times, the report would call for a gradual pullback of American forces from Iraq beginning in 2007.[7]
The New York Sun reported that an expert adviser to the Iraq Study Group expected the panel to recommend that the Bush administration pressure Israel to make concessions so as to entice Syria and Iran to a regional conference on Iraq.[8]
[edit] Contents
The final report has 79 separate policy recommendations in its 160 pages. Its central points had for the most part been reported on before its release. The report deals with domestic issues such as budget funding and economic processes, military issues including bringing U.S. troops out of Iraq and how to integrate more of them into Iraqi army units, the foreign political issues of nurturing an effective and unified Iraqi government, and diplomatic issues such as calling for direct talks with Iran and Syria.[9]
The report begins by laying out the difficulties surrounding the Iraq war and the current U.S. position. It warns that its policy recommendations are not failsafe, but that the deteriorating situation in Iraq could lead to political and humanitarian consequences if not dealt with immediately.[10]
Five pages of the report addressed U.S. troop levels.[11] Increasing those levels was not considered in depth as it was not considered a viable option.[12] Rather, the report recommended that the removal of all U.S. troops from Iraq by 2008 could be envisaged.[13]
The report mentions the little-known fact that U.S. funding for the Iraqi Army is at a level less than 4 percent of the funding for the U.S. occupation forces;[14] that it lacks adequate equipment, maintenance services, logistical support, communications and transport capabilities; and that it is weak in leadership and unit cohesion.[15]
The report also found that the U.S. government had intentionally misled the world by systematically distorting information about the violence in Iraq. Associated Press Military Writer Robert Burns reported:[16]
| The panel pointed to one day last July when U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence. Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence. The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases ... Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals. |
[edit] Military aspects
The report is heavily weighted with recommendations about the continued usage of military forces to achieve the goals of the United States. The goals of the United States take precedence over the interests of the population of Iraq in the report. Recommendation 41, for example states:
- "The United States must make it clear to the Iraqi government that the United States could carry out its plans, including planned redeployments, even if Iraq does not implement its planned changes. America's other security needs and the future of our military cannot be made hostage to the actions or inactions of the Iraqi government."
RECOMMENDATION 2: The goals of the diplomatic offensive as it relates to regional players should be to:
- i. Support the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq.
- ii. Stop destabilizing interventions and actions by Iraq's neighbors.
- iii. Secure Iraq's borders, including the use of joint patrols with neighboring countries.
- iv. Prevent the expansion of the instability and conflict beyond Iraq's borders.
- v. Promote economic assistance, commerce, trade, political support, and, if possible, military assistance for the Iraqi government from non-neighboring Muslim nations.
- vi. Energize countries to support national political reconciliation in Iraq.
- vii. Validate Iraq's legitimacy by resuming diplomatic relations, where appropriate, and reestablishing embassies in Baghdad.
- viii. Assist Iraq in establishing active working embassies in key capitals in the region (for example, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia).
- ix. Help Iraq reach a mutually acceptable agreement on Kirkuk.
- x. Assist the Iraqi government in achieving certain security, political, and economic milestones, including better performance on issues such as national reconciliation, equitable distribution of oil revenues, and the dismantling of militias.
[edit] Economic aspects
The report has a heavy focus on the oil industry in Iraq. Recommendation 62 says the US government should help draft an oil law that creates a fiscal and legal framework for investment. It further recommends that the US, in conjunction with the International Monetary Fund, should press Iraq to continue reducing subsidies in the energy sector until Iraqis pay market prices for oil products. Recommendation 63 says the US should assist Iraqi leaders in privatizing the national oil industry into a commercial enterprise to encourage investment by multi-national oil companies.
Tom Hayden alleges that the Iraq Study Group represents the interests of the US oil industry. James Baker's law firm has interests in debt repayment to Kuwait and other Gulf States. Lawrence Eagleberger has ties to Halliburton and Phillips Petroleum, and is a former head of Kissinger Associates, a corporate consulting firm. (Paul Bremer was managing partner of Kissinger Associates.) Vernon Jordan is a lawyer at Akin Gump who is closely associated with the Bilderberg Group. The expert working groups for the ISG include leaders of Bechtel, PFC Energy,[17] and two representatives of Citigroup, Inc.[18]
[edit] Reactions
The release of the report garnered swift and sometimes contentious reaction. The cover of the December 7 Rupert Murdoch owned New York Post depicted the heads of James Baker and Lee Hamilton superimposed onto the bodies of monkeys, with the headline, "Surrender Monkeys - Iraq panel urges U.S. to give up."
Media figures, including Bill Kristol, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck, criticized the members of the Iraq Study Group, the report, its findings and recommendations. Kristol called the report "an evasion" and "not a serious document"; Limbaugh who said that he "wanted to puke" while listening to the panel members, asserted that the members of the "Iraq Surrender Group" are "doing everything they can to unite the American people" in "defeat" and "surrender". Glenn Beck called the report "Operation White Flag." [4]
[edit] See also
- U.S. Institute of Peace (facilitator of the Iraq Study Group)
- Iraqi insurgency
- Iraq war
[edit] References
- ^ http://www.usip.org
- ^ Excerpts of the report quoted by BBC : "Situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating" [1]
- ^ The BBC wrote, "The report says US troops should be withdrawn from combat and instead used to train Iraqis." [2]
- ^ the Baker commission stopped short of endorsing Democratic calls for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops by a certain date. NY Post
- ^ a b Bha, Devika (2006-10-17). US panel to propose Iraq policy U-turn. The Sunday Times. Retrieved on October 17, 2006.
- ^ McManus, Doyle (2006-10-16). Panel to Seek Change on Iraq. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved on October 17, 2006.
- ^ Sanger, David E. (2006-11-30). 15 Brigades Would Gradually Stand Down Under Plan. New York Times. Retrieved on 7 December 2006.
- ^ Lake, Eli (2006-11-29). Baker Panel Aide Expects Israel Will Be Pressed. The New York Sun. Retrieved on December 1, 2006.
- ^ "Iraq panel demands urgent change", BBC News, December 7, 2006. Retrieved December 7, 2006.
- ^ "Iraq Study Group report: Excerpt", BBC News, December 6, 2006. Retrieved December 7, 2006.
- ^ More than 30 pages of the report consist of biographies of commission members and lists of people they interviewed; we counted just five pages devoted to the matter of U.S. troop levels in Iraq ... A bipartisan path to surrender?
- ^ Panel members say they were not given a mandate to consider increasing the number of American troops in Iraq because their military briefers dismissed out of hand the premise that it was possible to increase the number of American troops in Iraq, on grounds that not enough were available. ([3] ibid)
- ^ Kaplan, Fred (2006-12-6). So Much for Plan B: The Iraq Study Group chickens out.. Slate.com. Retrieved on 7 December 2006.
- ^ Section I.A.1 of the Report, subsection The Iraqi Army
- ^ Ibid., same subsection
- ^ Robert Burns, "Panel: U.S. underreported Iraq violence." Associated Press (6 December 2006).
- ^ official Website: PFC Energy
- ^ Tom Hayden: The Baker Agenda: Troops out, Oil Companies in? (CommonDreams, 8 December 2006)
[edit] Notes
Note 1: Sometimes referred to as the ISG Report, the Baker Report or the Baker-Hamilton Report
[edit] External links
- Iraq Study Group
- Iraq Study Group Report - Abridged (Wikipedia)
- Iraq Study Group Report Notes
- Iraq Study Group report: Excerpts - BBC World News
- Iraq Study Group Report (PDF, direct download)
- Searchable Version of Report
- Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2006 at Discourse DB - includes opinions about the Iraq Study Group Report
- Fun, fun, fun till Daddy took the Iraq war away - Salon.com article
| Members of the Iraq Study Group |  |
|---|---|
| Baker (Co-chair) • Hamilton (Co-chair) Eagleburger • Jordan • Meese • O'Connor • Panetta • Perry • Robb • Simpson |
