The Poisonous Report (ISG)

Editor of Arabic Reformist Website AAFAQ Criticizes Recommendations of the Iraq Study Group

The following is the translation of an editorial titled "The Poisonous Report" that was posted on the Arabic reformist website www.aafaq.org on December 8, 2006. It was written by website editor Omran Salman. [1]

"We may summarize the Iraq Study Group's report chaired by former secretary of state James Baker in one sentence: 'Handcuff the hands and free the tongue.' This conclusion went hand in hand with the common wisdom that says: 'When people sit to talk to one another, they forget their fighting.' This can be explained by realizing that the Iraq Study Group wanted to divert the conflict from the military and security side to the diplomatic and political side, in the hope that this diversion will reduce the pressure on the U.S. and allow - with the passage of time - the redistribution of power in Iraq.

"The report, which was made public Wednesday [12/6/06] after keeping everyone guessing about its content, did not say how this diversion could solve the security and military conflict in Iraq. Surely the report was unable to answer this question, simply because no one knows the answer. If any of the Group's members knew the answer, he or she would have whispered it a long time ago to the U.S. administration or to its adversaries. But the transition to what the Group referred to as 'The Political and Diplomatic Combat,' which aims at involving Iran and Iraq in the determination of Iraq's destiny, would require a price which the U.S. will have to pay.

"Here lies the essence of this whole report. The price is to completely abandon the spreading of democracy in the Middle East, and to begin a dialogue with the dictatorial regimes of Damascus and Tehran.

"In other word, the cost of bringing the Syrians and Iranians to the negotiating table on Iraq and of making them participate in finding a solution to its crisis is to grant them the honor of partnership in finding a solution - while they are conspiring and allowing militants and weapons to pass through into Iraq.

"This partnership means equity and the freedom of exchange of ideas and information, and possibly cooperation on other issues. If this happens, the current and any future administration won't be able to demand that these two regimes change their behaviors.

"The Study Group on Iraq realizes that this price is very high, and that President Bush will not accept it. Therefore, to make it a more comprehensive report about the Middle East, they proposed solutions with other issues, such as the peace negotiations between Israel and each of Syria, Lebanon and Palestinians, with the hope that this will make the deal relatively acceptable by making its expected advantages more attractive.

"The other possibility, about which the Group did not think deeply, was the extent to which the other side would accept the deal, particularly Iran. And, if Iran accepted it, what would its conditions be? The report attempted to respond to this point by indicating that if Iran rejects the deal, it will be proof that Tehran is not cooperating, and is involved intentionally in sabotaging the situation in Iraq - and this will expose and further isolate it internationally! Oh, really? God only knows what the Iranians thought when they read those words. For sure they laughed out loud about the naiveté of the report and its authors.

"What the authors of the report did not know, or may have neglected, is the fact that the moment they started talking about the U.S.'s need for Iranian assistance in containing the Iraqi situation, they in fact handcuffed the Bush administration, depriving it of any cards to pressure Iran, now and in the future.

"It took the U.S. and the international community a decade to rectify the mistake (and it is still not yet rectified) of the previous Bush (the father) administration, which had James Baker as one of its pillars, of handing Lebanon over to the Syrian regime in exchange for Syrian participation in the Gulf War of 1991.

"It's true that the situation in Iraq is bad. All agree that the previous policy has failed and that it must change. But it is important that such change should not be allowed to cause new catastrophes.

"The first is accepting the Syrian and Iranian regimes as part of the solution to the Middle East problems, after everyone including the American political establishment has indeed considered them part of the problem. This change simply means the total failure of the American policy in the region.

"The second is putting Iraq's destiny in the hands of these regimes, which, at the least, are considered criminals, and have no credibility or moral values.

"The third is the total abandonment of the goal of spreading democracy and reforms in the region. It was striking to note that the report, with its 142 pages, did not mention democracy at all.

"In other words, the report of the Study Group on Iraq, besides the fact that it did not present any real solution to the Iraq's problem, throws the baby out with the bathwater. The report's final outcome is the solution of the Syrian and Iranian regimes' problem - not America's problems. Therefore, this report is more poison than cure."

After a quick search I found these two. I'm sure I could find more.

Saturday, October 07, 2006
The Iraqi Polls That Are Worth Reporting and the Iraqi Polls That Are Not Worth Reporting
posted by Erik @ 7:17 AM

http://www.pkblogs.com/no-pasaran/2006/10/iraqi-polls-that-are-worth-reporting.html
(Note: click on link for more)

This AP poll is typical of the MSM's handling of the news, whether in Iraq or anywhere else.

It has been over three years since democracy (or a semblance thereof or the next best thing, call it what you want) was restored to Iraq, and only now does anybody (Iraqi or foreign) think of taking a poll among the Iraqi population?!

No. There has actually been an abundance of polls since April 2003, official and semi-official, Iraqi and foreign, but we rarely hear about them. The West's MSM either ignore them or mention them as briefly as possible, forgetting them instantly as they return to their hand-wringing, chicken-little prophesizing and to their ubiquitous search for bad news (such as this AP poll).

Now why would that be? Could it be that those polls give a (very) different illustration than that the MSM is used to giving us?

A book I am writing on the subject of anti-Americanism in the world (a version in French appeared a few months ago) quotes half a dozen of these polls.

A March 2004 poll by the BBC found that of 2,500 persons asked, only 17% thought that life was slightly worse or far worse than a year earlier, while 56% thought life had improved. When they were asked how they saw their lives a year from then, less than 7% thought that life would be worse than at the time of the poll, while 71% thought life would be better, with a majority opining that life would be far better. Opinion was shared as to whether coalition forces had humiliated the country or freed it (41,2% to 41,8%) but in any case, only a small minority (15%) wanted the troops to leave. As for the security situation, less than 27% thought it had gotten worse, while 54% (more than double) thought it had improved.

In a January 2005 poll, 88% of Iraqis polled by the newspaper Sabah supported military action against the "insurgents" who are terrorizing the country, while a rival newspaper, Al Midhar, found that less than 13% of Iraqis wanted the immediate departure of the troops.

In polls carried out by Iraqi universities during the Fall of 2005, Iraqis showed nothing but optimism. Two thirds said their lives were better than in the Saddam era, and no less than 82% felt sure that their lives would be even better one year hence.

(These results, incidentally, echo those from Afghanistan, especially the BBC's October 2005 findings, in which almost 77% thought that their country was on the right path, 87% held that the Americans' toppling of the Taliban régime was a good thing for the country, and 83% held a favorable opinion of the United States.)

As I mention on my blog, any anger, frustration, or resentment the Iraqis may hold towards the American military (and most do not) is dwarfed by that they felt — and that they feel — towards governments of the so-called Peace Camp, the peace activists, and the members of the MSM who opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Things to ponder while reading polls from Iraq (or, really, news about any subject from the MSM)…

__________________________________________

Poll: Major Change of Public Opinion in Muslim World
Terror Free Tomorrow Press Release ^ | March 4, 2005 | Matthew Joseph

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1355703/posts
Posted on 03/04/2005 12:54:04 AM CST by anymouse

WASHINGTON, March 4 /PRNewswire/ -- In the first substantial shift of public opinion in the Muslim world since the beginning of the United States' global war on terrorism, more people in the world's largest Muslim country now favor American efforts against terrorism than oppose them. This is just one of many dramatic findings of a new nationwide poll in Indonesia released today.

"In a stunning turnaround of public opinion, support for Bin Laden and terrorism in the world's most populous Muslim nation has dropped significantly, while favorable views of the United States have increased," said Kenneth Ballen, President of Terror Free Tomorrow, which commissioned the poll. "The poll shows that the reason for this positive change is the American response to the tsunami," Ballen added.

Key Findings of the Poll:

* For the first time ever in a major Muslim nation, more people favor US-led efforts to fight terrorism than oppose them (40% to 36%).

Importantly, those who oppose US efforts against terrorism have declined by half, from 72% in 2003 to just 36% today.

* For the first time ever in a Muslim nation since 9/11, support for Osama Bin Laden has dropped significantly (58% favorable to just 23%).

* 65% of Indonesians now are more favorable to the United States because of the American response to the tsunami, with the highest percentage among people under 30.

* Indeed, 71% of the people who express confidence in Bin Laden are now more favorable to the United States because of American aid to tsunami victims.

The Terror Free Tomorrow poll was conducted in February by the leading Indonesian pollster, Lembaga Survei Indonesia, and surveyed 1,200 adults nationwide with a margin of error of ± 2.9 percentage points.

Complete poll results and graphics are available at http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org .

(snip)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.