WASHINGTON, Dec. 7, 2006
Iraq Report Selling Like Hotcakes
The Skinny: Readers Snap Up Paperback Edition Of Iraq Study Group Report
-
Play CBS Video Video Differing Views On Iraq Plan Only On The Web: Bill Plante reports on the Iraq Study Group's blunt review of the president's failure in Iraq. Sens. John McCain and Joseph Biden weigh in on the group's suggestions.
-
Video Iraq Report Aftermath As Washington comments on the Iraq Study Group's report, "The Way Forward," the president is preparing to meet with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Bill Plante reports.
-
Video A Look At The Iraq Study Group CBS News military analyst Mike Lyons talks about the Iraq Study Group. "It sets a very clear expectation of what the situation is on the ground right now, what we have to do to go forward," he said.
-
(AP)
-
News Tools Blog: Public Eye Inside the news. Inside CBS. An unprecedented look inside the workings of CBS News. Check it out. Tell us what you think.
The Iraq Study Group report, in paperback already, is selling like hotcakes. (A portion of proceeds will go to the National Military Family Association, a nonprofit organization that assists members of the military and their families.)
At this particular moment, the book sits at number six on Amazon’s bestseller list, overshadowed by, among others, Barack Obama’s latest and a John Grisham novel.
The sales boom follows in the fine tradition of unexpectedly bestselling government documents – such as the 9/11 Commission report, published by W.W. Norton and a top ten Amazon pick for days. The oddest part of the bestselling phenomenon? The ISG report (and the 9/11 Commission’s report) are available online for free.
Storm Clouds Over Sunny Iraq
Candor now compels us to turn to the bad news: “The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating,” the Iraq Study Group's report officially proclaimed following a week of extensive leaks on the results of the bipartisan commission’s non-binding analysis.
This morning’s papers offer a slew of front page articles, each with its own overview of the panel’s results. Here they are, in no particular order: Washington Post, New York Times, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal.
All highlight the primary thrust of the panel’s 79 recommendations – that major combat troops could be withdrawn by 2008, Mideast diplomacy should include talks with Iran and Syria, and a new effort should be undertaken to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And world peace. Just kidding about the last one. Although that would be nice.
New York Times In Analysis
The Times offers two front page analyses – one looking at the White House’s potential reaction: The “real target of the Iraq Study Group was Mr. Bush,” writes the paper, and embracing the group’s recommendations “would mean accepting its implicit criticism of his democracy agenda, reversing course in Iraq and throughout the Middle East and meeting Democrats more than halfway.” Not exactly a politically palatable scenario, and so far, Republicans are taking “a kind of wait-and-see posture.”
In a second military analysis, the NYT points out one of the obvious military challenges: that the “study group is positing that the United States can accomplish in little more than one year what it has failed to carry out in three.” And while the panel proposes a pullout of major combat troops by early 2008, military analysts like Retired Army Chief of Staff Jack Keane told the paper: “Based on where we are now we can’t get there,” … adding that the report’s conclusions say more about “the absence of political will in Washington than the harsh realities in Iraq.”
Ret. Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey said “that the overall concept of withdrawing American forces as the Iraqis built up their military capability was sound.” Other aspects of the plan very much are not, however, said McCaffrey, saying that some of the panel’s “tactical ideas” “don’t make any sense,” and adding this kicker: “This is a recipe for national humiliation.”
No Offense Taken
Dubbing the report the “The Realist Manifesto,” a Washington Post analysis puts the document’s thrust bluntly: “Overall, it strongly suggests that Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have bungled diplomacy in the region with unrealistic objectives and narrow strategies.” Nonetheless, “administration officials yesterday gamely insisted that the report is not a criticism of the administration's approach.”
In another front page analysis examining the Iraqi perspective on the report, the Post reports that many Iraqi and military analysts are wary of the plan, arguing that “the report is a recipe, backed by threats and disincentives, that neither addresses nor understands the complex forces that fuel Iraq's woes.”
One Sunni Muslim politician told the paper: "It is a report to solve American problems, and not to solve Iraq's problems." Anthony Cordesman (who wins the prize for most quoted on the front pages today) offered this extended metaphor: "The U.S. effectively sent a bull in to liberate a china shop, and the Study Group now called upon the U.S. to threaten to remove the bull if the shop doesn't fix the china." Yeah, I had to read that a few times too.
The Los Angeles Times spoke with one anonymous ISG advisor to offer an analysis that focuses on the pathos of the report, describing the recommendations as designed in two parts with two different tones “to try to make it easier for Bush -- a man who prides himself on consistency and who consequently is criticized by opponents as stubborn.”
The first part included deliberately “tough language” (like “grave and deteriorating”) to “to break through the shield of defiant confidence that Bush often has deployed concerning the war.” The report’s second half was a “list of relatively moderate recommendations for the future, many of which gave the president considerable leeway to choose specific policies.”
©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
More From CBS Evening News: The Skinny
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
As long as it changes nothing I am happy. These Clowns who wrote this report know nothing about military strategy and have no desire to win this battle in IRaq or the War on Islamic Jihad terrorism . If anything James Baker and his bimbos represent the Saudi interest, just look its all through the document, requiring Israel to give up land, blaming the world's problems on the only succesful democracy in the Middle East, and appeasing the terrorists. There is no mention of the muslims who are waring in 10-20 other countries, which would totally invalidate the claim that it is Israel. So right there the report is compromised. Im more interested to hear the assesment by the pentagon than this flock of delirious has beens.
2. James Baker's law firm represents the Saudi Government v. The victims of 9/11! (ANti-American and flat out SICK!)
3. Since when do non-elected morons get make public policy???????????????? (Unconstitutional)
4. Paris Hilton could have come up with more realistic ideas.
5. Only one person in the Surrender group left the green zone in Iraq.
6. It portrays are military in bad light (there must be heavy democrat involment in this project)
Thhat's just a few reasons why this book has no real value.
I am glad people are buying it so they can see the real waste of tax dollars this project was. In fact I plan on buying it today and sitting down with a bottle of pepto bismal (So I dont get sick thinking there are some morons who are for this ***) to read the whole thing.
Well, D-UH!! Why should we solve Iraq's problems? Those problems existed long before King Dubya showed up & invaded this sovereign nation. Now, it's time for us to get our own house in order; let the Iraqis settle their own differences.