US Features
New ideas for Iraq but no guarantees of success
By Mike McCarthy Dec 7, 2006, 0:58 GMT
Washington - The highly anticipated Iraq Study Group report calls for a major shift in US policy that should include a new diplomatic push in the region and a warning for Iraqis to stop the violence or face a loss of American support.
After months of hype, the bipartisan panel of 10 political heavyweights cautioned that even if their dozens of ideas, offered to President George W Bush to reverse the downward spiral in Iraq, were implemented, success is not assured.
'No one can guarantee that any course of action in Iraq at this point will stop the sectarian warfare, growing violence or a slide toward chaos,' said the report by the panel, co-chaired by James Baker III, a former secretary of state and veteran Republican cabinet member, and former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton.
The Bush administration must enlist the help of foes Iran and Syria, reinvigorate the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and make it clear that US support for the Iraqi government is not indefinite, the panel said.
'America's other security needs and the future of our military cannot be made hostage to the actions or inactions of the Iraqi government,' the report said.
The Iraq Study Group also called for a pullout of most US combat forces in early 2008 - depending on the security environment - and presents ideas for shoring up Iraq's oil infrastucture, judicial system, police and military forces, and reconstruction.
The report in many ways represented a stark difference from the Bush administration's current policies and was a blunt assessment of the deteriorating situation in Iraq. Baker and Hamilton were clear in a press conference releasing their report that the White House plan was failing.
'That approach is no longer viable,' Baker said.
Hamilton told reporters: 'The current approach is not working, and the ability of the United States to influence events is diminishing.'
Perhaps the most crucial issue raised in the report that directly confronts the Bush administration is engaging neighbouring Iran and Syria, an idea Bush has steadfastly refused, particularly with Tehran, which has intensified its nuclear activities in defiance of Washington and its allies. Bush has also rejected calls to set timeframes for the United States to pullout its 140,000 soldiers in Iraq.
Bush's insistence on his policies have raised questions in the weeks leading up to the release of the report as to whether the president will seriously consider the panel's non-binding conclusions. Bush was briefed on the study shortly before its release and later signalled that he was ready to accept new ideas.
'This report gives a very tough assessment of the situation in Iraq. It is a report that brings some, really, very interesting proposals,' Bush said. 'And we will take every proposal seriously, and we will act in a timely fashion.'
Leon Panetta, a Democratic member of the Study Group who served as former president Bill Clinton's chief of staff, said he was encouraged during the briefing with Bush.
'He certainly was very engaged in the conversation,' Panetta said. 'I think he recognizes that fact, that this was unique.'
Further enhancing the chances that Bush will welcome the report is that his new defence secretary, Robert Gates, served on the panel until he was tapped last month to replace Donald Rumsfeld, and Gates shares the view that the policy in Iraq is not succeeding.
'We are not winning, but we are not losing,' Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee Wednesday during his confirmation hearings. He added that the administration's policy was not working, and a new direction is needed.
Some critics of the Baker group say the report offers plenty of ideas but few tangible means of implementation, including one big question about whether Iran and Syria would be serious about helping Iraq or prefer to see the United States policy to bring democratic change to the region falter.
Others point to the committee's caveat that progress relies on the Iraqis' ability to govern effectively and get serious about ending the sectarian strife that has brought the country to the verge of all-out civil war.
'The US effectively sent a bull in to liberate a china shop, and the Study Group now called upon the US to threaten to remove the bull if the shop doesn't fix the china,' said Anthony Cordesman, an analyst at the Centre for Strategic & International Studies in Washington.
© 2006 dpa - Deutsche Presse-AgenturCOMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
I really wish someone would ask Cheney what he will have Bush do.
The government realized they fail, now they want out so they just blame someone else for their mistake.
So the U.S. is now ready to pull out of a country it invaded, in the most flagrant and grievous violation of international law since Saddam invaded Kuwait? They will leave after destroying the infrastructure of the country, after 600,000 civilians and soldiers have been killed, either by Americans, British or in sectarion strife that was unleashed in the absence of an effective post-conflict plan for security. Having destroyed another country, the Americans are now ready to cut out because 3000 of their soldiers have died. Well you should have thought of that before you voted for the fools responsible for this immoral war. You Americans should never again ask why the world harbours hostility towards you. Each and every American that voted for Bush ought to be sorely ashamed of his/herself. Shame on you.
The panel essentially confirms the failings of Bush, which the world knows other than his blind and deaf supporters. From day one Bush has been a pseudo leader. If 41 is the effective cause behind the study to save junior's face, junior could be forced into implementing the recommendations after a brief period of 'resistance' for public relations purposes. Junior and his team are forced to eat crow in public view. By any standard of measurement, he will be embarrassed by a very public revelation of his failed foreign policy with respect to Iraq in particular, and the Middle East in general. Bush is finished as a leader, his credibility in in tatters, and his ability to govern effectively very much in serious doubt. He is not even a lame duck. This duck is paralyzed.
The majority of Iraqis have voiced their desire for democracy by virtue of their democratically elected government. How were they (or the US, or the Brits) to know that an extremist minority within their ranks would behave like such animals. The reality is, most violence in Iraq is Muslim against Muslim, not coalition against Iraqi. To blame the US for a possible failed state in Iraq is inane. Responsibilty for the current crisis must ultimately be shouldered by those extremist opportunists who seek to overthrow the Iraqi people's burgeoning government by means of terror in their bid to establish a Somali style Shari'a coup.
Gentlemen, In my lifetime, any toilet I've ever seen has had a handle on it and yet Iraq is still around. I wake each morning hoping to see the headlines read ' Sheites all dead, Sunnis looking for other targets.' Nearly 3000 of our men and women killed to salve the Alfred J Newman look alikes ego. What a tragedy.
I really question the intelligence and education of our nation's leadership. Did any of these guys take any history? Certainly the so-called experts in our government did didn't they? Did anybody listen to them? I am reminded of the old Abbott and Costello 'Who's on first?' routine. I don't think anyone in power in either party has a clue. This commission spends months and millions of tax dollars to make observations and reach conclusions that should have been done before the first soldier set foot in Iraq a few years back. Oh well, what's several hundred billion dollars down the drain - it's not our money. How do we justify the death and suffering of the soldiers? As George Will said in an editorial -- 'for what?'. This is the 2nd time in my life I have seen my government take its citizens for granted and exploit them while good men died in wars we had no intention of winning. What's the old saying about 'fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you'? Our leaders better start thinking real hard about 'strike 3' and who is going to be willing to go to bat for a government so full of cynical opportunists.
Let me see if I understand this correctly: Someone objects to an open-ended commitment in Iraq, predictably the same folks who object to a conflict in the first place.
Now, with some ambitious dems and republicans, they do this.... vaudeville act... to distance themselves from the issue, for 2008.
541 elected officials, thousands of federal employees, and they need a study group...
The USA with only 6% of the worlds total population, uses, annually. 25% of the worlds Oil Production and to date even outstrip China as the worlds biggest carbon polluters.
The discussions on Monsters and Critics, are often on average, months ahead of the media.. and are a fertile ground for journalists.....
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Sprintracer,
I've read your rants on this forum for some time now.
If the war in Iraq was so damned justified, so utterly neccessary, why the hell aren't you over there fighting?
Or, do you prefer to continue to tell the rest of us why our son's and daughters need to be there.
Congress: Stop Funding the Iraq War.
When you choke a horse with wads of money, it makes it easier to swallow more the next time. The horse is being fed far too much, and too often.
page: 1
What a Crock...Dec 7th, 2006 - 02:04:05
A veritable smoke and mirrors act.
Report this comment