Iraq Panel Calls Conditions 'Grave and Deteriorating'
By William Branigin, Josh White and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 6, 2006; 2:10 PM
Conditions in Iraq are "grave and deteriorating," with the prospect that a "slide toward chaos" could topple the U.S.-backed government and trigger a regional war unless the United States changes course and seeks a broader diplomatic and political solution involving all of Iraq's neighbors, according to a bipartisan panel that gave its recommendations to President Bush and Congress today.
In what amounts to the most extensive independent assessment of the nearly four-year-old conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 2,800 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis, the Iraq Study Group bluntly warns that "current U.S. policy is not working." Citing rising violence and the Iraqi government's failure to advance national reconciliation, the panel paints a grim picture of a nation that Bush has repeatedly vowed to transform into a beacon of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.
Despite a list of 79 recommendations meant to encourage regional diplomacy and lead to a reduction of U.S. forces over the next year, the panel acknowledges that stability in Iraq may be impossible to achieve any time soon.
"We do not know if [Iraq] can be turned around, but we think we have an obligation to try," former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), a co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, told a Capitol Hill news conference after the report was made public. "The task ahead of us is daunting . . . but it is not by any means lost."
The group's Republican co-chairman, former secretary of state James A. Baker III, said the report "doesn't bind anyone," but he suggested that its recommendations carry extra weight because they have "complete bipartisan support."
"We do not recommend a 'stay the course' solution," Baker said in summarizing the group's findings at the news conference. "In our opinion, that approach is no longer viable." But he said the group "also did not recommend a precipitous withdrawal of troops because that might not only cause a bloodbath, it would also invite a wider regional war."
At present, Baker said, Iraqis are "struggling in a world of fear" and "dare not dream" of a better future. "They have been liberated from the nightmare of a tyrannical order only to face the nightmare of brutal violence. . . . It is time to find a new way forward."
The group's recommendations for that new approach focus largely on building a broad international consensus for helping the nation, pushing Iraq to meet a set of rather ambitious deadlines for internal progress, and gradually reducing the U.S. troop presence there while boosting support for Iraqi army control of the security situation.
"No one can guarantee that any course of action in Iraq at this point will stop sectarian warfare, growing violence or a slide toward chaos," Baker and Hamilton warn in a joint letter accompanying the report. "If current trends continue, the potential consequences are severe."
The letter adds, however, "All options have not been exhausted. We believe it is still possible to pursue different policies that can give Iraq an opportunity for a better future, combat terrorism, stabilize a critical region of the world and protect America's credibility, interests and values."
The report spells out in language both blunt and bleak the consequences of continued strife and deterioration in Iraq: the collapse of the economy and fledgling government; growing civil strife between Sunni and Shiite Muslims that could spread to neighboring countries throughout the Middle East; new power and influence for Iran and al-Qaeda, diminished respect worldwide for the United States and a growing burden on the U.S. military that could hamper its ability to defeat militants in Afghanistan.
It raises the specter of a humanitarian catastrophe that could spark a flood of refugees across the region, as well as the possible return of Iraq to dictatorial rule.
CONTINUED 1 2 3 4 Next >
Read the Executive Summary. Assessment and Way Forward Appendices
Much-anticipated Iraq study to be released online
POSTED: 2:58 p.m. EST, December 4, 2006
But If You Can’t Wait And Want Your Own Copy…..
Read the report as aPDFdownload
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/12/06/iraq.report.pdf
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Iraq Study Group's long-awaited report on how the U.S. should overhaul its effort in Iraq will be released online on Wednesday.
The recommendations will be posted to the Web sites of four organizations that have been involved in the effort: the U.S. Institute of Peace (www.usip.org ); the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University (www.bakerinstitute.org ); the Center for Strategic and International Studies (www.csis.org ); and the Center for the Study of the Presidency (www.thepresidency.org ).
The report will be posted at 11 a.m. EST, just as the commission begins a news conference on Capitol Hill formally releasing its work. The panel is headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana.
The group's study is seen as the first major bipartisan effort to rethink military and political options in Iraq, where increasing violence has raised questions about the viability of the Iraqi government and U.S. policy.
The group is expected to recommend gradually phasing out the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq from combat to training and supporting Iraqi units, with a goal of pulling back American combat troops by early 2008.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.
Iraq Study Group: Change Iraq strategy now
POSTED: 2:16 p.m. EST, December 6, 2006
Report calls for a "diplomatic offensive," end U.S. troop combat role by '08
U.S. troop mission should evolve to role of supporting Iraqi Army
Military units "under significant strain," and equipment wearing out quickly. Bush, Congress must cooperate or "policy is doomed to failure"
More on CNN TV: James Baker and Lee Hamilton sit down with Larry King for their first primetime interview since the report's release. Tune in tonight 9 p.m. ET.
WASHINGTON (CNN) --
The United States must change its military and diplomatic strategies to tackle the "grave and deteriorating" situation in Iraq, according to a report from the Iraq Study Group.
The approach must be a "diplomatic offensive," urged the report presented to President Bush Wednesday, and U.S. combat brigades should be pulled out by early 2008. U.S. troops would evolve into advisers to the Iraqi Army.
As part of the diplomatic initiative, direct talks must be held between the United States and Iran, as well as Syria, according to the bipartisan group led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton. (View the complete report -- PDF)
"If we don't talk to them, we don't see much progress being made," Hamilton said in presenting the report. "You can't look at this part of the world and pick and choose which countries you're going to deal with."
On the military front, the report suggests, "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."
It adds: "At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams and in training, equipping, advising, force protection and search and rescue."
The co-chairs said they took "a pragmatic approach" to determining the best course for Iraq and determined that the combination was not a military, political or economic one, but rather, a combination of the three.
"We no longer can afford to stay the course," Baker said. "If we do what we recommend in this report, it will certainly improve our chances for success."
Hamilton echoed his colleague's sentiments, saying the Iraqi people are "suffering great hardship" and their lives must be improved.
"The current approach is not working and the ability of the United States to influence events is diminishing," Hamilton said. "Our ship of state has hit rough waters. It must now chart a new way forward."
Among the group's most important recommendations: a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will allow the United States to move forces out responsibly; prompt action by the Iraqi government to achieve milestones, particularly reconciliation; and new diplomatic actions in Iraq and in the region.(Watch what the report recommends)
Attacks against U.S. and coalition troops are "persistent and growing," the report states, and about 3,000 Iraqi civilians are killed every month.
"Violence is increasing in scope, complexity and lethality," the report says, blaming the Sunni Arab insurgency, Shiite militias and death squads, al Qaeda and other jihadist groups as the sources. "Sectarian violence -- particularly in and around Baghdad -- has become the principal challenge to stability."
The U.S. military's ability to combat the violence is dwindling because of shortages in manpower and other resources, the report states. It says almost every U.S. Army and Marine unit, as well as several National Guard and reserve units, have been to Iraq at least once, if not two or three times.
"Regular rotations, in and out of Iraq or within the country, complicate brigade and battalion efforts to get to know the local scene, earn the trust of the population and build a sense of cooperation," according to the report. "The American military has little reserve force to call on if it needs ground forces to respond to other crises around the world."
Many units are "under significant strain" and equipment is wearing out quickly because of the harsh conditions in Iraq.
Iraqi security forces, too, are ill-equipped to fight the insurgency and are making only "fitful progress toward becoming a reliable and disciplined fighting force," according to the report.
Although U.S. troops have received adequate funding, "the entire appropriation for Iraqi defense forces [for fiscal year] 2006 [$3 billion] is less than the United States spends in Iraq every two weeks."
The state of the Iraqi police force is even worse, states the report.
"It has neither the training nor legal authority to conduct criminal investigations, nor the firepower to take on organized crime, insurgents, or militias," it says. "Iraqi police cannot control crime, and they routinely engage in sectarian violence, including the unnecessary detention, torture, and targeted execution of Sunni Arab civilians."
In addition to its inability to provide security, the Iraqi government also fails to provide basic services like electricity, drinking water, sewage, health care and education, the report says.
"The government sometimes provides services on a sectarian basis. For example, in one Sunni neighborhood of Shia-governed Baghdad, there is less than two hours of electricity each day and trash piles are waist-high,' according to the report.
While not recommending a timetable for withdrawal, the report says: "The United States must not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq."
The report warns of dire consequences, both at home and abroad, if the U.S. fails to take action.
"If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe. A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized," the report says.
"We will take every proposal seriously, and we will act in a timely fashion," Bush said after receiving the report. (Watch Bush's reaction after receiving Iraq report)
Bush urged Congress to work with the administration to find "common ground" on Iraq policy.
The report also prods the administration to launch a new diplomatic initiative to solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
It contends the United States "cannot achieve its goals in the Mideast" unless it embarks on a "renewed and sustained commitment to a comprehensive peace plan on all fronts."
Although the president has said his goal is to help form an Iraqi government that can sustain and defend itself, the study group contends that cannot be achieved without serious help from other nations in the Mideast.
"Every country has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq's neighbors," the report says.
"Iraq's neighbors and key states in and outside the region should form a support group" to help Iraq achieve long-term security and political reconciliation -- "neither of which it can sustain on its own," the report says.
The report says al-Maliki's government needs to show "substantial progress ... on national reconciliation, security and governance" or face a reduction in "political, military, or economic support" from Washington.
The report concludes: "Foreign policy is doomed to failure -- as is any action in Iraq -- if not supported by broad, sustained consensus."
CNN's Ed Henry contributed to this report.
Your e-mails: The right approach on Iraq?
POSTED: 1:04 p.m. EST, December 6, 2006
(CNN) -- A high-level panel has made its recommendations on Iraq, calling the situation there "grave and dangerous," while adding "prospects can be improved." The Iraq Study Group calls for direct talks between the United States, Iran and Syria and urges moving most U.S. troops from combat to support roles by early 2008.
We asked CNN.com readers for their thoughts on the report. Here is a selection of the responses, some of which have been edited for length and clarity.
Joseph Mancini of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania
The plan won't work. One of the principal proposals is to cooperate with Iran and Syria to reduce violence in Iraq. Bush has called these countries evil and havens for terrorists. Why would they cooperate with the U.S.? These countries don't need our money.
Walt Hampton of Arnold, Maryland
I think the plan is as well-considered and appropriate as you could hope for. With the appointment of the new Secretary of Defense and the execution of this plan, we are clearly moving in the right direction. Success, however, is now a relative term.
Rod Venger of Colorado Springs, Colorado
It's a disgusting document (based on what I have read so far) that dishonors us all and in my opinion will lead to even more dishonor and eventual attacks here at home.
Ted Ulmer of Dresher, Pennsylvania
I do not feel any plan will work with the U.S. involved in Iraq or Afghanistan. These people deal with their own issues and have been doing so for thousands of years... [The] United States needs to leave those countries and let them take care of themselves.
Mary Lou Czupek of Plainfield, Illinois
No! I think this study group's suggestions have all been rejected by Bush before. This is just a stalling tactic. The rest of the world is just waiting for us to "run out of resources" and then they will come in for the kill. Question is, whose side is Bush on?
Dotun Obadina of Fargo, North Dakota
How many experts on Iraq were in this study group? [What about] experts on ethnicity as the war in Iraq is an ethnic conflict? Have any of the people in the study group been in the war in Iraq? If the answer is no... then how do they possibly know how to solve a solution they potentially know nothing about?
Steve Cherba of Stevensville, Michigan
This proposal will not work. It is just another "clever" move by Bush and Baker to provide cover for the president's war in Iraq. As far as ending political bickering as the president commented, I say sure, as long as he agrees with me that we should pull all our troops out now. The sooner we take away the troops, and in general, America, as targets, the sooner this region will quiet down.
What do you think? Send your thoughts to CNN.
Senate committee approves Gates nomination
POSTED: 12:35 a.m. EST, December 6, 2006
NEW: Full Senate to vote on nomination Wednesday or Thursday, aide says
Defense secretary nominee says next "year or two" will determine Iraq's fate
Robert Gates says U.S. invaded Iraq with inadequate troop levels
Nominee fears chaos in Iraq could spark a regional conflict
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously approved President Bush's nomination of Robert Gates to be defense secretary Tuesday and sent it to the full Senate for approval, the committee's outgoing chairman said.
Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia announced the committee's 24-0 decision after a closed session.
The full Senate could vote Wednesday, but senators may not have an opportunity to vote until Thursday, depending on how many lawmakers want floor time to speak on the nomination, a Senate aide said.
Gates, the 63-year-old president of Texas A&M University, was nominated November 8 to replace outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Testifying before the committee for hours, he told members the United States was not winning the war in Iraq and that the U.S. course there "over the next year or two" would shape the entire Middle East. (CNN's Andrea Koppel on Gates' testimony)
Gates, who served in the administration of the first President Bush as CIA director and deputy national security adviser, gave no timeline for ending the conflict in Iraq.
But he repeatedly referenced "the next year or two" when discussing U.S. options in the war-torn nation.
"Our course over the next year or two will determine whether the American and Iraqi people and the next president of the United States will face a slowly but steadily improving situation in Iraq and in the region or will face the very real risk and possible reality of a regional conflagration," he said.
Developments in Iraq during that time will "greatly influence global geopolitics for many years to come," he said.
Also affecting regional stability, Gates said, is how the United States handles its acrimonious relationships with Iran and Syria.
Gates has previously said the United States should include both countries in efforts to stabilize Iraq, an opinion Bush does not share.
Though neither country is well-equipped militarily to exact harm on the United States, both pose threats to the region and U.S. interests, Gates said during the hearing.
Iran concerns Gates because "their capacity to potentially close off the Persian Gulf to all exports of oil, their potential to unleash a significant wave of terror -- in the Middle East and in Europe and even here in this country -- is very real," he said.
But, the nominee said, while the Islamic republic is working against U.S. interests, "I think they could do a lot more to hurt our effort in Iraq."
Attacking Iran would be an "absolute last resort" if diplomatic efforts to dissuade the Islamic republic's nuclear ambitions fail, he said.
Syria poses even less of a threat to the U.S., and any U.S. military attack on Syria would have grave consequences for the region, said the former CIA director.
"I think that it would give rise to significantly greater anti-Americanism than we have seen to date. I think it would immensely complicate our relationships with virtually every country in the region," Gates said.
Iraq tops priorities
But the handling of Iraq -- which Gates said would be his priority -- is the most essential element to importing stability to the region. (Watch how Gates will tackle his "highest priority")
"My greatest worry, if we mishandle the next year or two and if we leave Iraq in chaos, is that a variety of regional powers will become involved in Iraq, and we will have a regional conflict on our hands," Gates said.
Iran and Syria, said the nominee, are integral to the "long-term stability" of Iraq and the United States should consider "incentives or disincentives to bring them to be constructive."
Gates also said he is "very sympathetic" toward the idea of deploying extra troops in Afghanistan but that U.S. allies may need to reconsider restrictions that limit their troops' roles in the nation.
Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, who will chair the Senate Armed Services Committee when the new Congress convenes in January, asked Gates if he thought the U.S. was winning the war, to which the nominee succinctly replied, "No, sir."
Later, he clarified his remark, saying the United States wasn't losing either and that his comment pertained to Iraq as a whole, not just as a military endeavor.
"Our military forces win the battles that they fight. Our soldiers have done an incredible job in Iraq, and I'm not aware of a single battle that they have lost," he said.
"The situation is clearly much more complex than just the military action. The areas we are having our challenges, frankly, are principally in the areas of stabilization and political development and so on."
As recently as October, Bush said the United States was winning the war.
Gates also told Republcian Sen. John McCain of Arizona the "status quo isn't acceptable" and that the United States invaded Iraq without enough troops.
The nominee said he suspects that in hindsight the Bush administration would have handled some decisions differently, "and I think one of those is that there clearly were insufficient troops in Iraq after the initial invasion to establish control over the country."
The nominee also told the committee that he was "open to new ideas" regarding policy in Iraq and that "all options are on the table." (Watch Gates explain how the U.S. must maintain "some presence in Iraq for a long time")
"I am under no illusion why I am sitting before you today: the war in Iraq," Gates told the committee. "I welcome the many alternative strategies and tactics proposed by members of Congress and others."
Bipartisanship key
The nominee said he would pursue a bipartisan agreement to answer questions not only about the military concerns in Iraq, but also the political ones.
Among the questions that must be answered are: How will the Iraqis deal with sectarian violence? How do they approach national reconciliation? How do they fairly distribute oil revenues? And how are they going to ensure that Iraq's religious and ethnic groups live together peacefully?
The only way to answer these questions, Gates told Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, is via a "broad, bipartisan agreement."
"It probably wouldn't include everybody; that's too difficult," Gates said, adding that bipartisanship is crucial so terrorists and insurgents "don't think we're going to walk away from this war on terrorism and so that they don't think it's going to be easy to start attacking us here at home because we're not willing to take them on abroad."
Gates said that, if confirmed, he would quickly consult military commanders in the field and politicians back home to determine the best course of action in Iraq, but "I will give most serious consideration to the views of those who lead our men and women in uniform."
Gates conceded his position allows him only so much authority in the matter and that "it is the president who will decide what, if any, changes are made in our approach."
As the hearing began, Warner warned President Bush and Gates to consult with Democrats before changing Iraq policy.
Warner said consultations should come after Bush reviews reports on Iraq being prepared by the nonpartisan Iraq Study Group, the Pentagon and other agencies involved in the war.
Gates was recently a member of the study group, whose members will testify before the Senate committee Thursday morning, Warner said.
In closing, Warner told Gates "to be fearless -- I repeat -- fearless" in giving advice to the president.
Levin added that Gates faces "the monumental challenge of picking up the pieces from broken policies and mistaken priorities in the past few years."
Speedy confirmation
Before heading to Capitol Hill, Gates met with Bush at the White House for breakfast. In a brief statement, Bush said, "I hope for speedy confirmation so he can get sworn in and get to work."
Bush announced Gates' nomination the day after Democrats snared the necessary seats to take control of both houses of the new Congress when it convenes in January.
GOP and Democratic leaders on the committee agreed to proceed with Gates' confirmation this year, rather than wait until the Senate changes guard in January. Rumsfeld will continue in the post until the Senate approves his successor.
Gates has shown signs that he is willing to voice unpopular opinions to the administration. In addition to his criticism of the Iraq war's handling, Gates also has pledged to improve the Pentagon's postwar planning.
No significant opposition to Gates' nomination has surfaced. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Gates would be confirmed unless something "untoward" turns up during the hearings. (Watch why Gates is expected to be approved)
In 1987, Gates was forced to withdraw his nomination as CIA director after he was dogged by questions surrounding his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, in which the United States sold arms to Iran in exchange for U.S. prisoners in Iran.
Some of the proceeds from those sales were diverted to the military operation of Nicaragua's Contra rebels.
Gates was renominated and confirmed as CIA director in 1991, serving until President George H.W. Bush left office in 1993.
CNN's Ed Henry and Liz Flynn contributed to this report.
House leaving town with work incompletePOSTED: 12:17 p.m. EST, December 6, 2006
House to vote on bill requiring measures to reduce fetal pain during abortions
Representatives will also vote on Vietnam trade bill
Tax breaks package expected to pass
Congress will adjourn before passing budget bills for 13 cabinet agencies
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The defining theme of the waning days of Republican congressional rule is a GOP leadership hawking an abortion restriction that has no chance of becoming law, loading up tax breaks with unrelated matters and dumping an unfinished budget on Democrats.
And it's all with the blessing of the White House.
"It's appropriate that the do-nothing Congress is ending by doing nothing," said Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, the next House majority leader.
That's not exactly true.
Congress on Wednesday renewed the $2.1 billion-a-year Ryan White CARE Act for the prevention and treatment of AIDS, after the Senate unanimously approved it.
Congress on Tuesday sent Bush legislation to spend $38 million to preserve the notorious internment camps where the government kept Japanese-Americans behind barbed wire during World War II -- a stark reminder of how the United States turned on some of its citizens in a time of fear.
On Wednesday the House is taking up a package of trade benefits for developing countries highlighted by a measure to establish permanent normal trade relations with Vietnam. The House earlier rejected the Vietnam bill under an expedited procedure requiring a two-thirds majority, but it's backed by the administration and has a good chance of winning congressional approval.
And the Senate passed a bill to improve the government's preparedness and performance standards in the event of a pandemic or biological attack.
Meanwhile, House and Senate negotiators were working out final details on a package of tax breaks, many which expired at the beginning of the year, aimed at helping middle class taxpayers and businesses.
But Republicans about to lose their thrones are doing nothing not sanctioned by Bush before the 109th Congress shuts down after a final, four-day work week. On Wednesday, the administration released a statement saying the president strongly supports the fetal pain bill, which would require women at 20 weeks of pregnancy and beyond to be informed that an abortion would cause the fetus pain.
Budget bills punted to new Congress
Late Tuesday, Republicans killed a $4.8 billion drought relief package under threat of a presidential veto. They are punting nine unfinished spending bills until next year, forcing newly minted Democrats to untangle next year's federal budget.
And the House postponed a showdown vote on opening 8 million more acres in the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas drilling, worried about achieving the two-thirds supermajority needed to pass the measure under special rules.
But those same rules did not hold House GOP leaders back from setting a vote Wednesday on a bill to limit fetal pain during late-term abortions, a measure GOP leaders shied away from offering before the November midterm elections and which stands no chance of passing the Senate even under GOP control.
Proponents, however, said bringing it up has educational and symbolic value. Sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith, R-New Jersey, the bill would require abortion providers to tell women seeking abortions after 20 weeks of gestation that such a process will cause the fetus pain, a statement that some scientists dispute. The woman would then be required to either accept or reject fetal anesthesia in writing.
Bringing up the bill is a final jab at Democrats who have professed to favor informed consent laws, according to the measure's sponsors. Smith also said its very floor debate, short though it would be under special rules, has educational value to anyone who might hear it.
And Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, a possible presidential contender, has said he would try to bring it up in the Senate this week if the measure gets the required two-thirds majority House rules require.
Since any senator can halt legislation, any such move by Brownback would be almost guaranteed to be blocked by abortion rights senators.
Still, Smith's bill isn't as controversial as it sounds. NARAL-Pro Choice America, an abortion rights group, doesn't oppose it. And House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi, D-California, was not planning a floor speech on the bill.
In other congressional action:
The House put off until Thursday a vote on a temporary spending bill for 13 Cabinet departments whose budgets are long overdue. The measure will keep domestic agencies on autopilot at or just below current levels through February 15.
The action would kick decisions on more than $460 billion in unfinished budget business to incoming Democratic leaders, subtracting from the new majority's time for their own agenda.
It's likely that Democrats will jam all of the unfinished budget work into a mammoth "omnibus" spending bill.
Republicans "forfeit any right to complain about any action that we are forced to take on appropriations bills next year to clean up their chaotic mess," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wisconsin.
House and Senate negotiators were working out final details on a package of tax breaks, many which expired at the beginning of the year, aimed at helping middle class taxpayers and businesses.
The provisions include deductions for research and development initiatives and for higher education costs. There are also tax breaks for teachers who personally buy classroom supplies and state and local sales tax deductions for taxpayers in states with no state income tax.
The tax measure enjoys wide bipartisan support, a reason that lawmakers were considering combining it with other more difficult bills. Among the additions could be the bill to expand offshore oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, trade benefits for developing countries and a bill to prevent cuts in Medicare payments to physicians.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press
Can Bush find an exit?POSTED: 7:47 a.m. EST, December 3, 2006
The following is a summary of this week's Time magazine cover story.
(Time.com ) -- George Bush has a history of long-overdue U-turns.
He waited until he woke up, hung over, one morning at 40 before giving up booze cold. He fought the idea of a homeland-security agency for eight months after 9/11 and then scampered aboard and called it his idea.
But Bush has never had to pull off a U-turn like the one he is contemplating now: to give up on his dream of turning Babylon into an oasis of freedom and democracy and instead begin a staged withdrawal from Iraq, rewrite the mission of the 150,000 U.S. troops there as they begin to draw down, launch a diplomatic Olympics across the Middle East and restart the flagging peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
Even calling all that a reversal is misnomer; it would be more like a personality transplant.
But Bush will soon begin the biggest foreign policy course correction of his presidency.
No matter what else may get stapled onto it, the maneuver will be based on what the bipartisan, congressionally mandated commission led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton reached agreement on last week.
The Baker-Hamilton commission's work has been compared to family interventions for a substance-addicted cousin, but unlike those encounters, this one won't remain behind closed doors. The entire 10-person commission will brief the president Wednesday and then repeat the lesson for congressional leaders, both incoming and outgoing, later the same day.
The Iraq Study Group will call for a massive diplomatic push in two areas in which the White House has never put its shoulder to the grindstone: rekindling peace talks between Palestinians and Israelis and holding an international conference that would lead to direct talks between Washington and Tehran and Damascus.
The Study Group's military proposals are performance-based: they would link a staged withdrawal from Iraq by U.S. forces to stronger actions by the struggling Iraqi government.
Realism was exactly what the people who cooked up the commission had in mind when they set the bipartisan operation in motion more than a year ago. The review began as a $1 million insertion into an appropriations bill by Republican Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia, who had gone to Iraq last year and decided the policy wasn't working.
He slotted the money to the U. S. Institute of Peace, whose president, Richard Solomon, approached the one person in Bushland who still had a reputation for realism and who could command the president's ear, alone: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Would she propose the commission to the president?
Rice's request: Don't look back
After some hesitation, Rice agreed, but made one request: the commission had to look forward, not backward, in part because she knew the dysfunctional Bush foreign policy operation, tilted so heavily along the Cheney-Rumsfeld axis, would not permit, much less sustain, scrutiny.
Rice got through to Bush the next day, arguing that the thing was going to happen anyway, so he might as well get on board. To his credit, Bush agreed.
Baker and Hamilton were left to choose their own panelists, and the commission went to work, gathering evidence, making a trip to Baghdad and hearing from more than 100 experts.
Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor developed a reputation for asking the best questions. Democratic power broker Vernon Jordan emerged as the group's political sage. Clinton defense chief William Perry cornered the military options -- and would be a holdout on the final deal.
When Democrats swept the November elections, aides to several panelists told Time that the commission would have more room to make sweeping proposals. Rumsfeld's resignation the next day cemented that feeling.
But the election, instead of making things easier, actually made them harder.
Psychoanalysis and the prodigal son
When Bush replaced Rumsfeld with Robert Gates, a member of the Baker-Hamilton commission who had served the first President Bush as head of the Central Intelligence Agency, the psychoanalysis rampant in the media about daddy's team coming back to save the prodigal son steamed everyone at the White House, from the president on down, and led the administration to dig in its heels.
Meanwhile, the situation in Iraq itself kept deteriorating and there was a risk that the panel's proposals would be obsolete before consensus was reached.
Baker turned up last Monday with a draft report he wanted panel members to consider or amend and then get into the president's hands. Democrats led by Hamilton, Perry and Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton's ex-chief of staff, were adamant that the report recommend a firm starting point for troop withdrawals. When the Republicans again refused, members agreed on language that would leave the date vague but the vector clear. And then the group adjourned.
'No idea how things will look in February'
Bush will put a few weeks between the big Baker-Hamilton rollout and his own restart -- White House officials worry that anything faster would look too reactive -- but one official told Time that the new path the president will outline in coming weeks is "significantly different than what we've been doing. ...When the president says we're going to get the job done, that doesn't suggest it is an open-ended commitment forever."
Whether it is the Baker approach or whatever the White House decides to call its own, events in Iraq could easily make any plan for diplomacy and withdrawal irrelevant in the face of a weak central government, a deepening civil war and widespread violence.
A commission official put it this way, "What we have produced is a plan for December. We have no idea what things are going to look like in February."
Click here for the entire cover story on Time.
Copyright © 2006 Time Inc.
Dobbs: Our leaders are ducking reality on Iraq
POSTED: 8:09 a.m. EST, December 6, 2006
By Lou Dobbs
CNN
Editor's note: Lou Dobbs' commentary appears every Wednesday on CNN.com.
NEW YORK (CNN) -- The bipartisan Iraq Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican, and former 9/11 Commission Co-Chair, Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, has been at work for eight months to develop an assessment of the war in Iraq and new policy recommendations.
But yesterday the president's nominee to succeed Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense, Robert Gates, gave a clear assessment of the war. When the soon-to-be-chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, asked the former CIA chief whether the United States was winning, Gates answered directly and straightforwardly, "No, sir."
Gates' answer is far more important to future U.S. strategy than whether one considers the violence in Iraq to be sectarian or an outright civil war. And Gates made clear during his confirmation hearings that, unlike his predecessor, he would be open to ideas about American policy in Iraq.
But there are fundamental realities that we all have to acknowledge about this administration's conduct of the war in Iraq. Those realities have been ignored by both this administration and most Democrats and Republicans in Congress. And just in case the Iraq Study Group ignores those realities, I'd like to offer a few for your consideration.
While many of our elected officials and the national media have focused on whether or not Iraq is now in a civil war, the real questions are: What is our national interest in the Middle East and why are we expending thousands of precious lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to pursue obviously failed strategies?
Nearly 3,000 of our troops have been killed since the beginning of the war in Iraq; all but 139 of them after President Bush stood below a banner declaring "Mission Accomplished." More than 21,000 troops have been wounded, and of those about 10,000 of were so seriously wounded they could not return to duty within three days.
The Pentagon is considering a request of at least $127 billion in new spending, most of which would be to support the war in Iraq. That request would be in addition to the $70 billion already allocated for next year, bringing the total allocation for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and anti-terror efforts to almost a half-trillion dollars.
Not only was this administration wrong in declaring Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but it was also wildly wrong in its original estimate on the cost of the war. Then-White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey put the cost at $100 billion to $200 billion. Mitch Daniels, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget, discounted Lindsey's estimate as far too high and said the cost would be between $50 billion and $60 billion.
As absurd as Daniels' statement was, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz claimed that Iraq's oil revenue would cover the costs: "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. ... The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 billion and $100 billion over the course of the next two to three years. ... We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
Nobel laureate economist and Columbia University professor Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University professor of public policy Linda Bilmes now offer a far more reasonable and likely estimate of more than $1 trillion for this war.
Even the Bush administrations' efforts to put together a so-called "coalition of the willing" to carry out this war displayed an equal ignorance of realpolitik and economic reality. As President Bush sought to rationalize the Iraq adventure as a noble effort to democratize the Middle East, our European allies and Russia based their regional policies on economic reality.
While the United States imports only about 22 percent of its crude oil from the Middle East, the European Union imports 40 percent from the region, according to a 2000 European Commission green paper on the EU's energy supply. The paper also says that in the next 25 years the EU could be importing 90 percent of all its crude oil. The EU also imports more crude oil and natural gas from Russia than from any other country.
Those economic realities help explain European nations' reluctance to join the coalition of the willing. The European Union has more to lose than does the United States from direct involvement in the Middle East. The EU is more aptly called a union of the energy dependent. To take another perspective on the economic realities that the United States has ignored but which our European allies could not, Russia and the Middle East could strangle the European Union's economy almost at will.
And the United States has a small window of opportunity to invest in alternative energy sources that could relieve this country of the oil dependency that is driving our adventurous Middle East policies and the Europeans' timidity.
The half-trillion dollars that we have spent in precious capital to prosecute the war would have funded a massive alternative energy development program in this country or, failing that enlightened strategy, it would have at least paid for all of our oil imports for almost four years at current prices.
We can all hope that the Iraq Study Group's recommendations are positive contributions to a change of policy in Iraq and the Middle East. And we should also hope this nation embarks on extrication from our dependency on foreign energy sources and return to a rational policy of self-reliance.
No comments:
Post a Comment