Why I don't like the Iraq Study Group

The Iraq Study Group(ISG)'s report has been widely anticpated. For those of you who do not know about the ISG, it is a group of foreign policy realists tasked by Congress to examine and analayze the situation in Iraq in order to make recommendations on how to improve the situation. Realists are people who follow a school of thought that considers nations as self-interested, power-seeking rational actors. They see cooperation between states occurring only when the interests of the states (national interest) are in alignment. Thus, when some nation can help you achieve your goal, you enter into temporary alliances to strengthen your position.

This is what the main recommendation of the ISG amounts to. The study recommends diplomacy with the neighboring nations of Iran and Syria in order to stabilize Iraq. Iran and Syria have nothing in common with the United States in terms of ideology or government, but since they, like us, want a stable Iraq, they should become temporary allies or tools to help us achieve a stable Iraq. However, this idea relies on the assumption that not only do Syria and Iran want a stable Iraq, but that they have some means of making Iraq more stable. We can be fairly certain that Syria and Iran both want a stable Iraq. Iraqi refugees have been flowing into the surrounding nations, which is not a good thing. Furthermore, the continuing violence is only serving to increase the power of religious militias and give Al-Qaeda and other foreign jihadis crucial combat experience. This experience will then be brought back to whatever nation the jihadi came from, which will have the likely effect of increasing terrorism.

What is not so clear is that Iran and Syria have any means to affect change inside of Iraq. Much is made about the connection between the Shi'ite militias and the Iranian government. However, in reality, the connection is not quite so solid. Many Iraqis hate Iran. After all, there was a brutal 8 year war from 1980 to 1988 which claimed thousands and thousands of civilians in both nations. The Syrian government is even less likely to be able to influence events in Iraq, with its continuing issues in Lebanon.

With these things in mind, I have a hard time believing that a regional dialogue with Iran and Syria is a solution to instability in Iraq. Don't get me wrong, it will certainly help and engagement with these nations should have happened before the invasion actually occurred. But by itself this will have little impact on the security situation inside of Iraq. The only way I believe the security situation can be improved is with a large increase in the number of American troops in Iraq.

Getting back to the ISG's report, their suggestions amount to a 'cut and stay' policy. Their report recommends cutting down the number of U.S. troops and moving to more of an advisory position, training the Iraqi police and military. I fail to see how this will improve the problems in Iraq. The lack of security is the main issue and moving troops out of Iraq certainly will not stem the tide of violence. If anything, it will make things more ugly and violent. I am hopeful at this point because it does not seem that the White House is going to adopt the recommendations of the ISG's report. While there are some postive recommendations, they are for the most part wrong.

Recommended reading:

ISG Charade - by Thomas Barnett
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2006/12/isg_charade.html

USA nails the ISG - by Thomas Barnett
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2006/12/usa_nails_the_isg.html

Rights and Wrongs of Fixing Iraq - by Carlos Pascual and Kenneth Pollack
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/pascual/20061206.htm

Don't Count on Iran to Pick Up the Pieces in Iraq - by Kenneth Pollack
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/pollack/20061208.htm

We Must Not Leave Iraq - by Michael Rubin
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25253,filter.all/pub_detail.asp