US News
US panel urges Bush strategy change in Iraq (Roundup)
By Tony Czuczka Dec 6, 2006, 18:21 GMT
Washington - A high-level panel Wednesday urged a major shift of US strategy in Iraq, proposing diplomacy with US foes Syria and Iran, a retreat of US troops from the front lines and new Middle East peacemaking effort to reverse a 'grave and deteriorating' situation.
Co-led by former US secretary of state James Baker III, the 10- member group issued a bleak verdict on President George W Bush's policy in Iraq at a critical juncture in the debate about the way ahead. In effect, the report said Bush had reached a dead end.
Though he has no obligation to accept all or even part of the 79 suggestions, the highly anticipated report will increase pressure on Bush for a new approach. He pledged to take the report seriously and 'act in a timely fashion.'
Bush staunchly opposes some of the panel's ideas, including a US initiative to reach out to Iran and Syria - countries he views as part of the problem in Iraq. Baker insisted that fresh thinking was needed and that the US should aim for 'success,' not 'victory' in Iraq.
'There is no magic formula that will solve the problems of Iraq,' Baker said in presenting the recommendations in Washington. 'It is time to find a new way forward, a new approach.'
Bush has vowed to fight until victory, but the report warned that even his goal of building an Iraq that can 'govern, sustain and defend itself' - which the panel endorsed - may be unreachable.
'The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating,' the report said. 'There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved.'
The Iraq Study Group said its proposals would help shore up US global interests and unite Americans behind a new strategy in Iraq. But it also urged greater pressure on Iraqis to make 'substantial progress' toward uniting the country and halting sectarian killings.
'A military solution will not end the violence in Iraq,' Baker said. 'We must help the Iraqis help themselves.'
The report called for a sharp boost of the number of US troops training Iraqi forces, allowing US soldiers to shift to a support role while the Iraqi army takes over primary responsibility for combat operations.
US combat troops 'not necessary for force protection' could be withdrawn by the first quarter of 2008 if the security situation allows, the report said.
It also called for a broad US diplomatic initiative on Iraq involving the United Nations, the European Union, US regional allies like Saudi Arabia but also US enemies Iran and Syria.
'Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively,' the report said.
The group also called for a 'renewed and sustained commitment to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts.'
'The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability,' the report said.
Baker expressed sympathy for the fate of ordinary Iraqis since the US-led invasion in March 2003 that toppled Saddam Hussein.
'Struggling in a world of fear, the Iraqis themselves dare not dream,' Baker said Wednesday. 'They have been liberated from the nightmare of a tyrannical order, only to face the nightmare of brutal violence.'
Bush received the group's report at the White House hours before its public release and pledged to take action, though he warned he was unlikely to accept all of its proposals.
'It is a report that brings some really very interesting proposals. And we will take every proposal seriously and we will act in a timely fashion,' he said.
Pressure to bring US troops home or at least move more of them out of harm's way has grown dramatically since Bush's centre-right Republican Party lost November 7 congressional elections to the centre-left Democrats, who campaigned for an exit strategy from Iraq.
The panel's proposals offered no dramatic departures from ideas that have kept Washington abuzz for months. But signs that the Bush administration is looking to cut its engagement are increasing.
Defence secretary nominee Robert Gates, at his confirmation hearing Tuesday in the Senate, said that the US is 'not winning' in Iraq. He said he would explore a 'wide range' of ideas to conclude the war and insisted that 'all options are on the table,' though he avoided specifics.
Gates, a former head of the CIA spy agency with long experience in government, was tapped when Rumsfeld quit on the day after the election, making way for what Bush pledged would be a fresh approach at the Pentagon after three-and-a-half years of war in Iraq.
© 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
According to NPR, the Baker Report calls for increases in US troops in Iraq. The American public voted to get out not escalate. This article doesn't comment on that issue but if that is a central part of the report it should really be questioned.
Visit this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking and attempt to understand what is described therein.
Good luck.
The American Public did NOT 'vote to get out or Iraq' as you stated! Beating the** out of a child and then abandoning them, does not make a better child. The damage is done. We are in the thick of it. Simple thinking, and lies got us into the mess, but won't get us out.
I think the vote was more about trust, not the specific 'get out' request that some people are yelling about. The reactive response is most certainly not the best.
Now, how to recover from the 'Conservative Agenda' that has been and is being foisted on us, is a more functional question. And, unfortuantely a much more difficult one. Here is George Lakeoff's take on part of it:
( http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/incompetent )
\
As long as this administration is in power, I don't think we have much hope brokering solutions that amount to peace, as the conservative agenda is fed by war. Everything Bush touches turns to pain and distress, a simpler subset of existence that avoids a more complex, encompasing, open, spirtual plane. His (and the conservative agenda's) simpleton spirtuality is probably the root cause of thes failures.
Along the lines of solutions, S. Africa used a 'Truth and Reconsiliation' process to end apartheid. Why not use it in Iraq to end Sunni and Shite hostilites?
All of this is a consequence of having elected and inept to the White House. Most Americans, even staunch Republicans, knew that Bush wasn't prepared nor had the ability to be president. Bush chose not to listen to his father nor to the military nor to the advise of Mr. Powell, but instead chose to believe those men like Chenney and Rumsfeld who had this stupid ambition of setting a foothold in the region since the 1960s. I have tried to remember a single national or foreign policy that Bush has been successful at and I can't recall a single one besides cutting taxes to millionaires and to multinationals. Now we find ourselves in the hard spot of asking for assistance from our real enemies: Syria and Iran; the same countries that have been fomenting terrorism for years...Our sworn enemies. These are the countries that we should be trying to make their life miserable not more comfortable. Even in Afghanistan we're now considering to bring the Taliban to 're-establish' order! But don't blame it all on President Bush. The Republican majority and people like Hillary Clinton, McCain, and the national media as much to blame for supporting this 'war' effort because they didn't have the guts to go against a popular president even when they knew he was wrong and was acting maliciously.
What, you mean simply repeating the phrase 'Stay the course' isn't working??? Or attacking anyone with a different viewpoint as a 'terrorist sympathizer' isn't helping. Well gee, who would have thunk it?
While this article DOES give hope, it's utterly amazing that this panel had to be called. I believe the Bush administration that their invasion and ensuing policy in Iraq has failed miserably. The more pressing question is: Why have they 'really' decided NOT to draw down forces and look to diplomacy after all this time? The invasion itself was bad enough, but once it was accepted that the ever lingering 'Weapons of mass destruction' theory was a complete fallacy, plans should have been made to begin the extraction. Instead, we just changed the name on the agenda to IRAQI FREEDOM and pressed. Folks, make no mistake about it, the United States started a war NOT in its own defense, but as a 'preventative measure'. This war has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people and has accomplished NOTHING, save for the capture of one Sadam H.
I did note that the new plan calls for an increase in troops. That's a big NO-NO. This is the last thing anyone wants and I see it as highly unnecessary. This should be reviewed. I eagerly await the President's decision on a new direction in Iraq. Will he humbly accept that diplomacy has been the answer all along? We can only hope...
This report calls for the iraqization of iraq. This is textbook Nixon.Thats stupid. We need to get the hell out of that country and let the people of Iraq sort out their own problems. Have we learned nothing from Vietnam.
I couldn't agree more steven. The world's largest problems can be solved through simplicity, and this is where the wool is pulled over everyone's eyes. The administration has concocted ever-more imaginative reasons why a draw down will take multiple years to accomplish; the population of U.S. troops for incursion into Iraq took less than 30 days. Hmmm...
Diplomacy, Peace...you do not know what you all are talking about.
You don't achieve anything by sticking your head in a hole ingnoring the fact that terrorism is a cancer that needs to be destroyed, for our kids future.
It is not the fact that they think differently than we do...it is the fact that they kill inocents to shut up and intimidate anyone that will stand up to them.
Bush...he made a choice to send us to combat, to secure a foot hold in the middle of the garden of eden. The guys and gals out there fighting, are more tired of Americans that are moved by the wind and not by convictions.
If we start something...FINISH IT.
That is how you earn respect, that is how Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, N. Korea, and the other haters of this great nation will know that we follow through...when we say no terrorist, we mean it.
I rather DIE fighting taking the fight to them, than to have them kill me in my own peaceful soil along with my children.
Remove politics out of killing the enemy...the only policy we need is 'Don't stop until we finish all the terrorists'
That is the only way the Italians got rid of the Red Brigade or Colombia got rid of the Cartel de Medellin.
IraqBeenThereDoneThat2yrs
Yes all the people in this world who don't want bush and his gang to rule their country and steal their resourses are terrrorists,so bush sends in the troops to destroy their countries,they fight back for their freedon,and so that is proof that they are terrorists,cause they fight back in the own country for their freedon,as if iraq people ever terrorised the usa?
Obviously the stage of diplomacy has passed. Bush rejected it before the invasion of Iraq, when it made sense, because he wanted his little war to be remembered by; however, now is not the time for it. Instead of trying to quell violence by apeaceing those who promote it, we should be engaging them. Iran and Syria only understand force. We could obliterate their will with a consistent air campaign without having to send troops in. Negotiations are only going to bring us more pain later. Acting now will allow us to interrupt their nuclear plans. If we don't do this more moderate countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia will be next to fall under the growing power and influence of Iran.
juve04
YOU are describing a ww3 initiation scenario,how many regional wars before a really big war?
To all that see the 'raising troop levels' and think 'oh no!' look at what they're actually trying to do with the troops.
The increase in troop levels is to increase the speed with which we can train Iraqi troops. If by pumping in another 10-15 thousand trainers, we can create another 100,000 Iraqi security forces, then that sounds like a good plan for getting out to me.
Also, the other thing that needs to be done is the return of basic services. And if we can bring in enough troops to guranatee complete security for the construction details, then that construction will go faster, and again, we'll be out of there sooner.
So yes, they want to increase the troop count immediately. But they also said they wanted to be getting most of the troops out sometime in 2008. So sending in several troops for another year or two, versus keeping the troops we have over there for another 5-10 years... that's a no-brainer.
Just my thoughts.
You certainly don't know what you are getting into. But here it is, from someone that is unbias....I don't care if it Bush or Chelsea Clinton who is president....the issue at hand is getting rid of Al-Qaeda, the Taleban, Hamas, Hezbolah...freedom fighters kill soldiers in combat, terrorists kill by standers in a market.
And by the way, Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction...can we prove it...no, do we know where the technology ended up at the right price...look to his neighbor at the east.
Uh...yeah by the way, no matter how much you say you hate the current administration...they still hate you. Just because you are an 'infidel'...and if you are not an 'Infidel' they hate you because you are not 'Militant'...if you are militant, watch out we are coming after you.
Do we need to change tactics, of course! We are not dealing with morrons like the crybabies that are just running their mouth against America. Wether you like it or not, we are a great nation because of our Democratic process...and Bush was the one who got it at the end. Next election...I hope is an individual that is decisive. If he or she is right or wrong...we as a nation stand behind him.
Tactics...special forces...tons of them. Special Operatives...lots of them. Using Israeli tactics of intolerance towards the enemy...they kill one of ours, we kill 100,000 of theirs.
Yeah! Right Bonzo!. The Senate Committee said he didn't.
page: 1
fotoniosDec 6th, 2006 - 19:03:06
approximately 1 million innocent people have died in this unjust and illegal war and the hypocrites in power what they come up with, THE IRAQ STUDY GROUP, give us a freaking break you brain washing mass media and your imperialists ruling elite!
Report this comment