Dana Milbank in the Washington Post:
[Iraq Study Group member Lawrence] Eagleburger said after the event that when the group met with Bush, "I don't recall, seriously, that he asked any questions."Are you surprised?
"Some reports are issued and just gather dust. And truth of the matter is, a lot of reports in Washington are never read by anybody. To show you how important this one is, I read it."Unlike the memo titled, "Bin Laden determined to strike America."
- President Bush, at a press conference, on the Iraq Study Group report.
The Iraq Study Group's long awaited (if exhaustively 'leaked') report was given to George W. Bush this morning. Here it is for us as a PDF.
Expect to be underwhelmed.
For the last month, the world have waited for 'The Amazing James Baker IIItm' to solve all of the problems in Iraq. We all know this isn't actually going to happen, but the expectation that the ISG will bring a major shift in Iraq policy and a brighter future to Iraq itself is persistent.
This is understandable. No matter how smart or well informed we are as citizens, there's an expectation that the government (or at least those making these types of recommendations within the government) are smarter and better informed than we are. Surely they'll think of something.
Well, here's the thing. Sometimes 'smart' and 'well informed' don't really get you anywhere. Sometimes things are just so broken that they can't be fixed. The situation in Iraq is pretty much screwed.
The report calls the situation "grave" and "deteriorating." So what? We didn't need Jim Baker the Third to tell us that. He also comes to the startling realization that failure in Iraq won't just screw up Iraq. The whole region could end up in chaos.
The media will report all of these turns of phrase ("Our ship of state has hit rough waters. It must now chart a new way forward.") as proof that the Baker Commission is taking a hard look at reality and speaking truth to power.
'Look how independent the Baker Commission is - they say we're failing! The Bush Administration would never do that. These guys must be serious.'
Of course this isn't the case. While every 'criticism' is stark, all recommendations are replete with enough caveats to allow the Bush Administration to keep doing what they're doing now.
"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."'Subject to unexpected developments' certainly gives George W. Bush a lot of wiggle room. We've been in Iraq since 2002. How many EXPECTED developments have there been so far?
"We will take every proposal seriously, and we will act in a timely fashion,"Words straight from Bush's mouth. Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but if Bush promises to take something 'seriously' and 'act in a timely fashion' I can pretty much be sure that the report will be shoved in a drawer somewhere and forgotten.
Bush urged Congress to take the group's proposals seriously and work with the administration to find "common ground" on Iraq policy.All of a sudden, the people that you demonized throughout the last two years for being cowards, 'cut and runners', terrorist sympathizers, or worse are supposed to work with you? You've spent (literally) millions of dollars trying to convince the American People that Democrats want to hand innocent Americans over to terrorists - now you are going to share war-planning responsibilities with them?
"The country is tired of pure political bickering," Bush said.
"Foreign policy is doomed to failure -- as is any action in Iraq -- if not supported by broad, sustained consensus."The report meant consensus at home - something Iraq had enjoyed (if wrongly) for many months before the public soured as the bungling became obvious. I contend that 'broad consensus' in a global frame is required for any sort of foreign policy - military interventions in particular - to succeed. It was obvious from the beginning that George W. Bush did not have the support of the world at large. The U.N. hardly jumped at the idea of 'disarming Saddam,' to say nothing of regime change and bringing 'freedom & democracy' to Iraq.)
The Washington Post:
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group plans to recommend withdrawing nearly all U.S. combat units from Iraq by early 2008 while leaving behind troops to train, advise and support the Iraqis, setting the first goal for a major drawdown of U.S. forces, sources familiar with the proposal said yesterday.The Baker Commission is just a dog and pony show. Any possibility of real change coming out of it's report is gone.
The commission plan would shift the U.S. mission in Iraq to a secondary role as the fragile Baghdad government and its security forces take the lead in fighting a Sunni insurgency and trying to halt sectarian violence. As part of major changes in the U.S. presence, sources said, the plan recommends embedding U.S. soldiers directly in Iraqi security units starting as early as next month to improve leadership and effectiveness.
The call to pull out combat brigades by early 2008 would be more a conditional goal than a firm timetable, predicated on the assumption that circumstances on the ground would permit it, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the commission's report will not be released until next week. [Emphasis mine.]
"It's really about transitioning from a combat to a support role, and basically making very clear that this is no longer an open-ended commitment and we're going to get this done whether the Iraqis like it or not," said one of the sources. "Everybody understands that we're at the end of the road here."Haven't we been trying to move from a 'combat role' to a 'support role' for months now? And if we're 'making it very clear' that we're not staying forever, how in hell are we supposed to 'get this done whether the Iraqis like it or not?' Really. If we're giving them the lead and telling them that this isn't an indefinite deployment, how are we going to force two sides of a civil war to create a viable state with a unity government when they've shown that they have no interest in sharing oil wealth, political power, or security responsibilities?
From the New York Times:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 — The bipartisan Iraq Study Group reached a consensus on Wednesday on a final report that will call for a gradual pullback of the 15 American combat brigades now in Iraq but stop short of setting a firm timetable for their withdrawal, according to people familiar with the panel's deliberations.For all the 'Strict Father' posturing, the draw down in troop levels is really about easing the domestic pressure of an unpopular war. And nobody's happier about this development than beltway Dems. It gives them cover for something they should have the courage to demand just because it's the right thing.
The report, unanimously approved by the 10-member panel, led by James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton, is to be delivered to President Bush next week. It is a compromise between distinct paths that the group has debated since March, avoiding a specific timetable, which has been opposed by Mr. Bush, but making it clear that the American troop commitment should not be open-ended. The recommendations of the group, formed at the request of members of Congress, are nonbinding.
A person who participated in the commission's debate said that unless the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki believed that Mr. Bush was under pressure to pull back troops in the near future, "there will be zero sense of urgency to reach the political settlement that needs to be reached."
The report recommends that Mr. Bush make it clear that he intends to start the withdrawal relatively soon, and people familiar with the debate over the final language said the implicit message was that the process should begin sometime next year.
