Iraq Study Group Report Took Nine Months to Compile???

A few excerpts from portions of the Iraq Study Group report, which was being released today, follow.

My question is this: IT TOOK NINE MONTHS TO WRITE THIS REPORT??????? I could have written it overnight nine months ago.

''The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved.'' Duh!

''Our most important recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly. We believe that these two recommendations are equally important and reinforce one another. If they are effectively implemented, and if the Iraqi government moves forward with national reconciliation, Iraqis will have an opportunity for a better future, terrorism will be dealt a blow, stability will be enhanced in an important part of the world, and America's credibility, interests and values will be protected.'' Really?????

''If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe. A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al-Qaida could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized.'' This isn't rocket science.

''During the past nine months we have considered a full range of approaches for moving forward. All have flaws. Our recommended course has shortcomings, but we firmly believe that it includes the best strategies and tactics to positively influence the outcome in Iraq and the region.'' NINE MONTHS, NINE MONTHS WASTED, WHILE AMERICAN LIVES WERE WASTED!!!!

And Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are still not being held accountable.

This all reminds me of something I read about 17th Century Dutch history in the East Indies. Native sultans didn't always honor trading agreements with the Dutch, causing friction. The Dutch, eventually under their top leader in the Indies, Coen, attacked those sultanates that were being dishonest in their dealings, causing casualties among the natives. Coen was called back to Amsterdam to explain his violence and scolded for his launching of attacks. The directors of the Dutch East India Company told him he wasn't sent there to do that.

The difference here is that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld sent our forces to Iraq to exactly do that: attack and occupy. And unlike in Coen's case, there is no one with the balls to scold or impeach them for their illegal actions and for overextending US forces. --Walter Haan, www.war-books.com