I think ^(link) therefore I err

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

The Iraq Study Group

You all remember Stay the Course. And just what was that course? From all I've ever heard, including that article about from July of 2003 it was:
Help the Iraqi's build a functioning democracy that they run themselves.

So why on earth does today's NYTimes story about the Iraq Study Group claim that
members of both parties in Washington have come to the conclusion that a significant change in course on Iraq is needed.
? And that change of course?
According to members of the panel, the group concluded that American forces in Iraq should make a major shift in priorities over the next year, largely withdrawing from combat in favor of beefing up the training of Iraq forces. It also called for stepped-up diplomatic efforts — including talks with Iran and Syria — not only to stabilize Iraq but to revive the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, news services reported.
I would not say that a shift in priorities makes a change in course. The object in the end is a stable democracy of Iraqis running their own country. I'm not at all sure why the study group is calling for diplomatic efforts with Iran and Syria who are both promoting a war in Iraq. But even that I wouldn't call a "change in course".

A change in course would be switching from pushing for democracy to pushing for a kingdom.
A change in course would be switching from pushing Iraqis to self government to insisting that Iraq become an unincorporated territory of the US, like Puerto Rico.
A change in course would be switching from a unity govt there to proposing 3 new nations.
A change in course would be switching from US involvement to Nato involvement.
A change in course would even include giving guns and ammunition to every adult there, standing back and saying may the strongest win.

The Iraq Study Group is "staying the course".