Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, October 25, 2006

U.S. looks to Baker for new Iraq policy

October 25, 2006

Advertisement

Waiting for Baker.

That may be the last, desperate Bush administration hope for rescuing its flailing Iraq policy. U.S. officials are anxiously awaiting the report of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by former secretary of state and Bush family confidante James A. Baker III, whose task is to reassess Iraq strategy.

The group's report won't come out until after the November elections, but, in a sign of how bleak the Iraq situation has become, Baker is being looked at as a sort of Houdini. Never mind that he has already warned "there is no magic bullet" for the Iraq situation. He knows he will be constrained by the fact that the administration's disastrous policy errors have foreclosed any good options.

Yet the Study Group has galvanized Washington's attention by virtue of the fact that the president endorsed its creation. The same president who has incessantly said he would "stay the course" has anointed Baker to propose a change of course.

"I wouldn't do it unless the president told me to do it," Baker told the Dallas Morning News.

It's worth pondering what this Bush concession means.

Jim Baker is hardly the man one would have expected the president to call on as rescuer-in-chief. True, Baker operated as the Bush family's consigliere in the 2000 Florida election. But George W. was never fond of his father's friend, who is a foreign policy realist with no illusions about the Mideast region. Indeed, Baker has harshly criticized Bush's Iraq policy in his new autobiography, "Work Hard, Study ... and Keep Out of Politics!"

By endorsing the study group, the president is making a humiliating admission that he needs rescuing from his Iraq mess. In fact, the normally stubborn Bush made a stunning admission in an Oct. 11 news conference.

"I think the characterization of 'let's stay the course' is about a quarter right," he said. "Stay the course means keep doing what you're doing. My attitude is, don't do what you're doing if it's not working; change."

However, finding a new course that will work at this late date will be a staggering task for Baker. Virtually every premise that the White House held about postwar Iraq has been proved wrong; the dire results leave the study group very little with which to work. With Iraq convulsed by sectarian killing, and the Sunni insurgency unchecked, Baker will have to pick and choose among a list of unsatisfactory choices:

1. Change the Iraqi government. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has proved incapable of the tough leadership needed to reconcile with "moderate" Sunnis, stop the sectarian slaughter, and undercut the Sunni insurgency. But this is not Vietnam 1963; the gung-ho-for-democracy Bush can't depose an elected Iraqi leader. The White House is stuck with an Iraqi government that can't govern.

2. Pull out immediately. Baker has already rejected this option. He fears a chaotic Iraq would become a regional battleground, as Iran, Syria and Sunni Arab states rush to fill the power vacuum left by the U.S. exit.

3. Push for the division of Iraq into three federal states for Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, in hopes this would stop the fighting. Baker says he can't see how one could draw the boundary lines, since Iraq's cities and towns are mixed. Sunnis and many Shiites bitterly oppose this idea, and I see no way U.S. occupiers could impose such a plan on Iraqis.

4. Send more troops. This isn't on because the U.S. military has run out of available bodies.

5. Draw down U.S. forces, but insert more teams of U.S. military trainers inside Iraqi security force units. A good idea - but military experts say it will be hard to find enough additional U.S. trainers, since this requires stripping officers out of their units.

6. Give the Maliki government a finite deadline to design a reconciliation pact with the Sunnis, and ratchet up the pressure by setting a timetable for the withdrawal of most U.S. forces - say, in two years. Then convene a conference of Iraq's neighbors and big powers to help stabilize the country. Such a conference would require the White House to deal with Iran (Baker supports negotiating with one's enemies).

My guess is that Baker's Iraq Study Group will propose some combination of 5 and 6, with no guarantees that Iraq or American policy can be salvaged.

Would Bush adopt such a radical course change? Already White House spokesman Tony Snow is cautioning that the president won't hand Iraq policy off to Baker's group. But Bush is drowning in Iraq trouble, and Baker offers the only life raft.

How tragic that George W. wouldn't turn to the Mideast-savvy Baker three years ago when his advice might have prevented disaster. At this point Baker may be able only to save Bush some face - but not to save Iraq.

- Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Comments

xenophonschild 7 years, 10 months ago

"Tragedy"?

How about criminal negligence?

And the best is yet to come. Some day soon, we'll be cruising along, sad about getting our asses kicked out of Iraq, but not really obsessing about it too much . . . when the headbangers-for-Allah manage to get international oil contracts rewritten in currencies other than the American dollar.

This will be the deer-slug to the belly, the head lopped off the American economy. When we have to earn foreign currency reserves . . . in another country's currency . . . to pay our oil bills, humiliation from our Iraqi defeat will change - diminish - our lives in ways we can only imagine now.

Gas at $5 a gallon is only the beginning. Other countries will call in our notes - our national debt - that everyone assumed was "no big deal." America will lose our superpower status, and pay the price that comes from being led by dumb-asses.

Thanks, Shrubby.

0

xenophonschild 7 years, 10 months ago

There should be a school to teach dimwits the proper use of sarcasm.

0

ksmoderate 7 years, 10 months ago

BushCo is beginning to reap what they have sown. Their divisive use of language (cut and run, stay the course, etc.) to villify the opposing party has done nothing but turn into a proverbial shot in the foot.

Now that Bush is saying that "we've never been 'stay the course,'" he is only making himself and his administration look like horse's @sses. Now he's the flip-flopper, and acting like it's no big deal (when the term was applied to Kerry, it was such a big deal that Bush was re-elected).

The RNC tried to shy away from "stay the course" a few months ago when Ken Mehlmann went on Meet the Press to try the phrase "adapt to win." That fell flat on its face like a lead zeppelin right in front of his eyes. It also doesn't help that Bush (remember....he said he would be the "Uniter") got even worse with his divisive speeches in recent weeks (playing the terror card, as in a vote for a democrat is a vote for the terrorists). In fact, those recent speeches are as shameful as anything he's ever been accused of, as his words are meant to strike fear into voters (TERRORIZE) to make them keep the republicans in power. By doing this he is, by definition, a terrorist.

I'm glad he's trying to find a solution instead of digging this hole any deeper, but what a crappy way to go. If he and the rest of the administration would've kept themselves from using divisive language, the american people would probably have a little more trust in him AND Congress.

Let's vote in some moderates who will work with each other!!!!! All incumbents who are guilty of crying wolf over all this need to be sent home, and that right quickly!

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.