I want to say " a Democratic victory in the 08 election," but I think it's out of the time-frame - i.e. 1st quarter of 2008.  So I'll say "what happens in a Democratic led congress."  But hell, that might not qualify as "unexpected."

Neoboho

I'm fuzzy on how quarters work, but wouldn't the next election happen in the forth quarter of '08 and the inauguration in the first of '09?

Isn't the Iraq Study Group suggesting we take just 6-9 months more than Murtha suggested before we cut and run?

Not, surely, the collapse of the Iraqi government or an all-out civil war — neither of which can be termed “unexpected” in any meaningful way.

I fear that's you talking, not the report. This sounds like more of the "if everything goes well, we can reduce troop levels" song and dance we've been hearing for a few years... the problem being that everything doesn't go well.

Since about six months ago, I've been including this coda whenever I write about this subject --

ESTRAGON: Let's go.
VLADIMIR: We can't.
ESTRAGON: Why not?
VLADIMIR: We're waiting for the political and security environment to stabilize.
ESTRAGON (despairingly): Ah!

Yes, "unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground" sounds like the neighbors getting involved. Russia is a neighbor and we first embraced Sadaam Hussein to lure him away from Soviet arms. Russia will elect a new President to (finally) replace Putin in March '08 (barring any "unexpected" development there) and Hu Jintao will no doubt be reelected in China that same month. Either country could either directly or through support of Iran and Syria (China and Russia both compete for influence there) change the "security situation."

We will be there as long as we insist on controlling the production and flow of oil. Time to really start facing facts.

"Where the bulk of the population cannot read, true democracy is impossible." -- Bertrand Russell

Haha

It matters who is considering these developments "unexpected". Acvcording to Bush & Co., the degradation in Iraq was unexpected, the failure to pump out the oil was unexpected, Hurricane Katrina was unexpected, a crisis in SS was unexpected, a Dem takeover of Congress this year was unexpected. Everything for them is "unexpected".

For the rest of us, all of this was clear as day. No matter how hard we screamed, we were labeled, shelved, marginalized, and forgotten. The only thing unexpected has been how long it is taking everyone else to wake the hell up.

The Iraq report is fluff, Bush might read a blacked lined version in the bathroom if Cheney lets him. It would be very unexpected indded if he ends up giving any "decider" time to this report at all.

Ivo

A variant of your point would be if oil resources from the region are threatened by events in Iraq. Japan and Europe could not withstand a cutoff of oil supplies from the Mid-East as well as the United States.

I am curious. If there is a regional conflict do you believe the Sunni Arabs ask Israel to just stay out of the way or will they in some way seek Israeli assistance against the Shites?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

ESTRAGON: I can't go on like this.
VLADIMIR: That's what you think.

"So what are the unexpected developments that could mean we should still be there, with all our combat forces, fighting a war?"

Those "unexpected developments" would, of course be determined by The Decider.

Without wishing to sound facetious, wouldn't a break-out of relative stability be the most unexpected development?

And if some semblance of calm were to emerge over the next twelve months, wouldn't the natural political consequence be a decision to keep a troop presence over there to ensure it stayed that way?

However I think the obvious assumption is that Baker & co are hedging on the possibility that regional conflagration forces us to stay longer. Though this would present the same dilemma as that which we currently face in Iraq - is our presence fueling or containing the instability?

So the "unexpected development" I think they have in mind is essentially that which would force us to reconvene the study group in a year's time to gather their thoughts and present the President with another bunch of unpalatable options.

And let's hope no-one in Congress wants to see that transpire.

I . . . have only read as far as . . . .

Stop, now; this report is DOA.

Sure; the Sunday talk shows will chat about it, pundits and bloggers will discuss it for a couple of days thereafter, but by Wednesday week, it'll all be forgotten.

Good riddance.

“by the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq.”
------
Why not do exactly that right now?

Wouldn't be prudent.

Regards,

Dana 

Charlie is my Congressman these days. I have faith he will make the GOP's lives miserable by seeming to be so reasonable.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Would it be unexpected if the upcoming "surge" involves the Bushites marching into Sadr City and then recapitulating their global Iraq fiasco on a smaller scale -- first an easy conquest and occupation, later on a whole slew of "problems of success"?

Would it be unexpected if the upcoming "National Salvation Front" ends by overthrowing poor M. al-Málikí's government illegally, with or without GOP connivance, with or without Arab League connivance?

Would it be unexpected if poor M. al-Málikí actually gets his kind of international conference rather than Kofi Annan's kind, or the ISG's kind, or the Crawfordites' kind?

&c. &c.

(Nearly thirty comments so far, and nobody made the obvious cheap shot: what more unexpected than that the Hamilton-Baker circus will actually affect the Executive Branch's conduct of the occupation?)

"....what more unexpected than that the Hamilton-Baker circus will actually affect the Executive Branch's conduct of the occupation?"

That's no cheap shot! That is a brilliant analysis of the resport. You found the one thing that has a near zero probability of happening.

Hoppy in Sacramento

The Report and it's 79 recommendations will be Bushwashed by the Administration. Kind of like those WH contacts with Abramhoff, reporter for Talon News aka Jeff Gannon, the missing WMD, New Orleans, flag draped caskets, the Clinton surplus, that GSA guy/gal who got canned after finding fraud, .... etc etc.

The disaster in Iraq and the Middle East can and will get a whole lot worse with George Dubya as Pres-i-dent, Decider in Chief. Maybe it wasn't such a great move to pull Saddam from that spider hole after all... 

"Unexpected developments." That's been the problem from day 1. To Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, just about every Iraq development has been unexpected.

"6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months."

"Mission Accomplished."

"Last throes of the insurgency."

-- "Good people can have honest differences of opinion. After 12 years of being neither, Republicans bear a hefty burden of proof."