Yesterday, the highly anticipated report, in the making for the last nine months by a bipartisan team of 5 republicans and 5 democrats, was finally released. (You can download a copy of the report and read it yourself if you like.) Over the last few weeks I'd been hearing that there would be “no surprises” in the report, and I'd heard people make the assumption that because it was bipartisan, the report would be watered-down and otherwise impotent. Well it's out now, and perhaps the biggest surprise of the report is its tone. It is pretty much a complete repudiation of Bush's failed policy in Iraq, as well it should be. Gone are the goals of a democratic Iraq, gone even is the assurance that we will definitely succeed.
From Bush rebuked for spread of chaos in Iraq (theglobeandmail.com):
…The long-anticipated report, a sweeping rejection of current U.S. policy, includes 79 specific recommendations with which the Iraq Study Group paints a picture of an invasion gone terribly wrong that has so far cost more than 2,900 U.S. lives (and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives), as well as $400-billion (U.S.).It also suggests that U.S. officials have been involved in “significant underreporting of the violence” in the country.
“The situation is grave and deteriorating,” co-chairman Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman, said yesterday in releasing the report. “Violence is increasing in scope and lethality… the current approach is not working. And the ability of the United States to influence events is diminishing.”
The report says: “A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighbouring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al-Qaeda 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.”…
The chairman of the team that authored the report is the Republican James Baker, former Secretary of State for the former President George H. W. Bush. He has been quoted by many news agencies as saying “We do not recommend a stay the course solution. In our opinion that approach is no longer viable.”
The report calls for an increase in the troops training Iraqi soldiers, but for no additional troops on the ground. It calls for a serious commitment to supply the new Iraqi forces with the equipment they need. It calls for drawdowns of American forces by 2008, and for a major diplomatic effort to stabilize the region involving direct talks with all of Iraq's neighbors (including Iran and Syria.) It connects the dots between other US policy in the region and Iraq, and calls for renewed efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict including the return of the Golan Heights by Israel to Syria.
The formal release of the report included a meeting between Bush and the team who produced it wherein they gave the President a copy of the report to review. Bush, for his part, expressed gratitude and a promise to study the report. There's no onus (beyond a political one) on the President to follow any of the recommendations in it of course, and his press secretary, former FOX News anchor Tony Snow was quoted as saying the President had ruled out direct talks with Iran unless Iran agrees to halt its nuclear program–demonstrating once again that the Bush administration just doesn't get it.
If we were arguing from a position of strength, and Iran was coming to us for help, we'd be in a position to make demands. We aren't in that position, and they're not begging us for help. We'd be begging THEM for help. You don't frame a request for help with demands, that's just effing stupid. Iran would be perfectly happy to continue to funnel support to the insurgency and let America continue to stew in its own mess. This is why we must engage with them.
It's not an ideal situation, but we gave away much of our bargaining power when we got into this ill-thought enterprise in the first place. Think about it for two seconds. Who was Iran's most powerful enemy? Who was most successful in keeping Iran in check? Why that would be Iraq under Saddam Hussein. By first containing Hussein, and by later removing him, we removed a major military threat to Iran. We basically put them in the catbird seat and enabled them to dictate terms to us. You conservatives can thank your boy in the White House for that.
Anyway, I for one hope that the threat of political isolation will force the Bush administration to pull their heads out of their asses and start working constructively to fix this failed policy. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.
Nice summary, Chuck. Thanks.
There is no onus whatsoever on Bush. What political pressure is there on him? He's not running for re-election.
My guess is that he will ignore it. Tony Snow has already said that they don't see it as a repudiation. They've tried to pretend it basically agrees with what they have been saying all along. No news here, move along.
This is the last administration I'd expect to pull out the stops and get some effective diplomacy going. No, of course not Iran is “insane” which is a nice way of saying “we don't have to be diplomatic; only bombing will work.”
Pubs and Dems seem to be supporting the ISG report in a bipartisan way, and pubs esp are eager to distance themselves from the president in order to increase their chances in '08. As a result, if he wants to get anything accomplished for his party, Bush needs at least make a show of doing some of the things in the ISG report.
Otherwise the dems won't work with him and neither will the pubs, leaving the Bush administration politically isolated, and that is the political pressure I was referring to. Don't forget Bush has other things he'd like to get done before he leaves office.
What does Bush want to get done before he leaves office that he even has a chance to get though the congress?
Immigration, but he's not going to get broad Republican support on his version and might not even need it.
Maybe other issues, but I don't know.
Will Bush become a working-with-Democrats uniter suddenly? I guess we'll see. But I'm not holding my breath. I think he's just waiting it out to hand off the mess.
Bush wants a guest worker program and the dems are likely to give it to him. (To say nothing of his plans for social security.) But moreover it is tactically bad for his party if he allows his administration to be isolated.