Monday, December 11, 2006

Time: Iran Happy With ISG Report

I have resisted commenting on the ISG report, I haven't looked at it enough to know what the intricacies are, just yet.

But based on what I have read and heard from a variety of sources, I am not so sure about it. To top it off,
Iran loves it.


The Iranian government has responded more positively than the Bush Administration has to the Iraq Study Group's proposal for talks between the two. And government sources in Tehran tell TIME that this reflects a sincere and calculated desire among the Iranian leadership for improved relations with Washington.

Death to America the Great Satan, or we want better relations. Which is it? The holocaust never happened or we want better relations with the U.S., which is it?

And why is it necessary to play this game, anyway? Anyone with any understanding of today's realpolitik knows that we have nothing of any value to bargain with.


UPDATE:

With all of the bad news comes some good news (well, at least it's promising), out of Iran.

The Arab News reports that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be headed for a setback.

AND

More people are letting their displeasure with the Iranian president be known.

6 comments:

Greg said...

Even James Baker admits talking to Iran is a non-starter. So why suggest it? "To expose Iran to the world as uncooperative," he replies. Yeah - we all missed Iran's uncooperative nature. A quick run-down of our enemies shows great interest among them in the report.

On the other hand, the good guys, like Israel and Jalal Talibani - they think it sucks.

Bad signs.

LASunsett said...

Greg,

//the good guys, like Israel and Jalal Talibani - they think it sucks.//

Talabani was actually quite angry and insulted by the whole thing. So much for the argument that Iraqis want us out, eh?

Greg said...

"The US troops are the problem" goes right up there with the "forcing democracy on them" argument. Both conflict with fact.

I would like to support the ISG report b/c it's clear we need to change strategies, but the more I read, the less I think this is anything but a roadmap for defeat & retreat.

Every US servicemember I've heard says we need to stop the "sweep & retreat" method in Iraq, whereby they roll into insugent-ville, kick ass, and run back to the base. They say we need to sweep and hold instead. This would require more troops. Almost no one will support it.

When the American people no longer support the cause, there's no way to win. I think that is where we are. I hate to say it, but....

LASunsett said...

Greg,

//When the American people no longer support the cause, there's no way to win. I think that is where we are. I hate to say it, but....//

I think that the cause was noble and that Saddam had to go. My only contention in this whole thing is that it was rushed, poorly planned, and the Bush administration was sucked into fighting a politically correct war, of which there is no such thing.

If we are not going to try to win and the Iraqis aren't appreciating what we are trying to do, then maybe it is time to pack up and go. One thing is for certain, we cannot go on as we are.

The ISG doesn't appear to provide any more real answers than the "stay the course" strategy. It definitely is not the panacea that some hoped it would be.

Mustang said...

Should we embrace those who are completely and totally dedicated to our destruction?

Not in my lifetime. And the suggestion to embrace such Islamofascists makes me wonder where the DEA is, because the ISG committee are obviously doing some heavy drugs.

Dialogue? Sure. "All ready on the left . . . All ready on the right . . . All ready on the firing line."

LASunsett said...

Mustang,

// "All ready on the left . . . All ready on the right . . . All ready on the firing line."//

Ready, sir. On your command.