**********************************
The Iraq Study Group Report is out, and here is the full report and a separate file with the Executive Summary. Other ISG files and webpages of interest:
"Iraq Study Group Fact Sheet"
"Iraq Study Group Consultations"
Iraq Study Group Members with bios
"Expert Working Groups and Military Senior Advisor Panel"
UPDATE: N.Z. Bear has converted the ISG report into a series of HTML pages so that bloggers can comment on particular statements or sections of the report and send readers directly to the text in question.
Leaked excerpts included the following:
"If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe. A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al-Qaida could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized."
------
"Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively. In seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United States has disincentives and incentives available. Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation. The issue of Iran's nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents and terrorists in and out of Iraq."
------
"By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq. At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams and in training, equipping, advising, force protection and search and rescue. Intelligence and support efforts would continue."
------
CT Blog experts have already opined on the possibility of "constructive engagement" with Iran and Syria:
Douglas Farah:
"The Danger of Empowering Terrorist States"
David Schenker has written these pieces on other sites:
Been There, Done That: Engaging Syria Isn't Going to Work
Assad State of Affairs
Syria's Answer
Dec 4, 08:59
The Next War is Already Beginning
**************************************************
As the Bush administration struggles to find a way forward in Iraq, the next major conflict there is already underway by proxy armies determined to impose their own agenda in the ugly situation that is likely to get uglier soon.
The next war being fought is between Iran, through the Shi’ite, Iranian-backed militias and infiltrated Iraqi army, and Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab Sunni world, anxious now to protect fellow Sunni believers who make up the bulk of the internal Iraqi resistence. All of this will make the situation worse for U.S. forces on the ground and further restrict realistic U.S. policy options.
Both groups support terrorist networks that pose direct threats to the United States and the West. Both sides want the United States to be defeated and forced into a long-term retreat in the war on Islamist radicals. There is no good side here.
The London Daily Telegraph says Nawaf Obaid, a senior Saudi government security adviser-is publicly considering providing anti-US Sunni military leaders with funding, logistical support and even arms – as Iran already does for Shia militia in Iraq.
This fear of a Sunni slaughter in the wake of possible reconfiguration of U.S. forces there, was one of the main reasons vice president Cheney flew to Saudi Arabia last week. The problem for the United States is that Saudi Arabia has been unwilling to try to rein in the Sunni forces that are inflicting the most casualties on U.S. troops on the ground.
Yet allowing the Shi’ite militias to run rampant and perhaps eliminate the Sunni threat and its al Qaeda-linked allies, is equally unpalatable. The power center then flows directly to Iran, a nation bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, eliminating Israel and defeating the United States.
Iran is already sensing victory and becoming less and less shy about openly bragging about it.
“The kind of service that the Americans, with all their hatred, have done us — no superpower has ever done anything similar,” Mohsen Rezai, secretary-general of the powerful Expediency Council that advises the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamanei, boasted on state television recently.
“America destroyed all our enemies in the region. It destroyed the Taliban. It destroyed Saddam Hussein… The Americans got so stuck in the soil of Iraq and Afghanistan that if they manage to drag themselves back to Washington in one piece, they should thank God. America presents us with an opportunity rather than a threat — not because it intended to, but because it miscalculated. They made many mistakes.”
So there we have multiple rocks rubbing up against numerous hard spots. Our Sunni supposed allies in the rest of the world backing armed groups that are killing Americans and fighting Iran’s radical Shi’ite regime that would like to be killing Americans.
The chances of ramping up U.S. force levels to have a real and sustainable impact on the conflict are negligable. Immediate withdrawal is not an option. Endless talk about creating a functioning democracy in Iraq is empty. The notion of dialogue with Iran and Syria-when neither has any stake in a secure and stable Iraq friendly to the United States, is a non-starter. And one way or another the bad guys seemed poised to strengthen their positions in the mid to long term.
I doubt the Baker-Hamilton Group can propose a workable solution to this. Perhaps it is time to start looking for the least bad option in this tragic mess.