Iraq Group Member: 'This Is a Start'
In its much anticipated report, the Iraq Study Group minced few words in describing the dire situation of U.S. policy in Iraq. Calling it "grave and deteriorating," the bipartisan group, led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, portrayed a devastating cycle of insurgent and sectarian violence that is slipping out of the control of both U.S. forces and the struggling Iraqi government.
"Current U.S. policy is not working, as the level of violence in Iraq is rising, and the government is not advancing national reconciliation," the report concluded, in a broad swipe at President Bush's "stay the course" rhetoric. But the Iraq Study Group also laid out a strong case that a precipitous withdrawal could plunge Iraq not only into chaos but into a wider regional war.
In 79 consensus recommendations, the report offers a course correction for U.S. policy on Iraq, relating mostly to security, diplomatic, and political issues. Broadly, the Iraq Study Group envisions U.S. troops transitioning from a combat role to a support role by the first quarter of 2008. At the same time, the Iraqi government would accelerate its move towards national reconciliation and the United States would lead a diplomatic outreach effort to the region, including Iran and Syria. President Bush's initial reaction was noncommittal, as he awaits the outcome of his own government-wide policy review.
The 10 members of the Iraqi Study Group acknowledge the limits of their recommendations.
"This is a start," panel member and former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson told U.S. News, "and it comes at a time when everybody is bitching and moaning and whining about a lack of bipartisanship in American on significant issues." U.S. News spoke with Simpson and William Perry, who served as defense secretary under President Clinton.
The two described a process of reaching consensus that was both collegial and grueling. One of the most contentious issues was how to lay out a time frame for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Perry says he was adamant that the report call for a clear, phased withdrawal of U.S. forces tied to an accelerated program to train Iraqi troops.
"Most of the debate was over how strong to make that phased withdrawal," he says. In the end, they settled on language that suggested U.S. combat troops (as opposed to those engaged in support functions or force protection) should be able to leave Iraq by the first quarter of 2008, "subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground." That final phrase was a compromise.
"We dealt with what could have been a fundamental problem by language, but we kept the idea still intact," Perry says. "It was not easy."
What is missing from the report is just as important. The document was crafted to avoid playing too closely into the hands of either Republicans or Democrats.
"The flash words are omitted–stay the course, cut and run, victory, democracy–all those words waiting to be pounced on," says Simpson. Indeed, there are remarkably few mentions of Bush's stated goal of forging a democracy in Iraq. In its place was more of a realpolitik approach.
"I hearken back to the phrasing of [Abraham Lincoln] made the Civil War when he was asked about slavery. He was saying it I could save the union with slavery, I would save it. If I could save it without slavery, I'd save it," says Perry. "That was our feeling about democracy. If we could create stability in the country with democracy, great. If we could create stability without democracy, or with a deficient democracy we still want stability."
The question still remains about how many of the recommendations that Bush, and his new defense secretary, Robert Gates, will adopt. Simpson, for one, thinks Bush might be ready to embrace some new ideas.
"He's opened himself up and I think that's an important thing to watch," Simpson says. "He doesn't want to have these last two years to be some failure of a stubborn president who didn't listen–some cowboy president."
advertisement
