All the public analysis about ISG is based on a faulty assumption. The public is judging the recommendations based on the assumption that it is internded as a strategy for withdrawal after (at best) some kind of nominal victory. That is not what ISG is.
ISG is a strategy for a negotiated surrender - or at best a tactical retreat. It calls for:
* Redeployment away from the primary field of battle;
* Leaving the primary enemy (Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists) in a position of power;
* Leaving our allies (Israel, Jordan, etc) more vulnerable;
* Offering our secondary enemies & their allies concessions (nukes for Iran, Golan for Syria);
* In exchange for safe passage during the redeployment.
Whatever else you say about Baker, he's too politically savvy to not realize what this all means.
ISG is a strategy for a negotiated surrender - or at best a tactical retreat. It calls for:
* Redeployment away from the primary field of battle;
* Leaving the primary enemy (Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists) in a position of power;
* Leaving our allies (Israel, Jordan, etc) more vulnerable;
* Offering our secondary enemies & their allies concessions (nukes for Iran, Golan for Syria);
* In exchange for safe passage during the redeployment.
Well gosh I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with these.
/sarcasm
The good news is in a couple of weeks no one will remember or use this piece of garbage.