The Iraq Study Group (ISG) Report
NBC News reported Wednesday evening that the report will be released on December 6. The New York Times reports that the ISG has reached a consensus 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.
The report leaves unstated whether the 15 combat brigades that are the bulk of American fighting forces in Iraq would be brought home, or simply pulled back to bases in Iraq or in neighboring countries. From those bases, they would still be responsible for protecting a substantial number of American troops who would remain in Iraq, including 70,000 or more American trainers, logistics experts and members of a rapid reaction force.
Individuals involved in the ISG’s deliberations say that the bulk of the report focuses on a recommendation that the U.S. devise a far more aggressive diplomatic initiative in the Middle East, including direct engagement with Iran and Syria. Initially, those contacts might take place as part of a regional conference on Iraq or broader Middle East peace issues like the Israeli-Palestinian situation, but they would ultimately involve direct, high-level talks with Tehran and Damascus. I’ve made my position on negotiations clear in a recent post.
One member of the Commission told the Times that
I think everyone felt good about where we ended up. It is neither ‘cut and run’ nor ‘stay the course.’ †Those who favor immediate withdrawal will not like it, [but it also] deviates significantly from the president’s strategy.
The Times avers that “What they ended up with appears to be a classic Washington compromise: a report that sets no explicit timetable but, between the lines, appears to have one built in” and quoted a senior American military officer involved in Iraq strategy as saying that “The question is whether it doesn’t look like a timeline to Bush, and does to Maliki.â€
The Leaked Hadley Document and the Bush-Maliki Meeting
On the same day that a meeting between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki in Jordan was unexpectedly postponed, the White House apparently leaked a damning appraisal of Maliki authored by National Security Adviser Hadley to the New York Times. The formerly secret document is based, in part, on an October 30 one-on-one meeting between Hadley and Maliki.
The Times indicates that Maliki was aware of the leaked document when he decided to postpone the meeting. Bush and Mr. Maliki still intend to have a breakfast together in Jordan today (Thursday) and hold a news conference afterward. Also according to the Times, Maliki backed out of Wednesday’s meeting after Iraqi officials loyal to Shiite cleric al-Sadr carried out their threat to suspend participation in the Iraqi government if Maliki ignored their request to cancel the Bush meeting. Maliki is facing demands from Sadr for the Iraqi government to take control of security forces from the U.S. The Sadr forces are also demanding that the government provide more electricity, gas and other basic services. If Maliki accedes to Sadr’s demand to reduce the role of U.S. security forces, the position of Sadr’s militia—the Mahdi army—would be strengthened. In addition to strengthening Sadr’s hand, this would, in my view, clear the stage for a further escalation of sectarian violence, as the restraining influence of U.S. forces would be sharply diminished.
Iraq Study Group Will Call For Gradual U.S. Troop Pullback…
The Iraq Study Group co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker II has reached a consensus: it’s time to start a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops, but not to do it on a specific timetable, ...
One wonders that if Pres Bush had met with the President of Iran and if the NY Times was in possession of an assessment similar to that for the meeting with Iraq if the paper would have released a document that could have sabotaged the meeting.
Supposedly, the NYT makes their decisions based on what is “newsworthy” – but there is great reason to doubt that.
Here is the text of Ahmadinejad’s letter. He is just a reasonable guy who abhors terrorism. Just ask him (but don’t look at what he is doing!)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/29/ahmadinejad.letter/#
“I think everyone felt good about where we ended up. It is neither ‘cut and run’ nor ‘stay the course.’” member of the ISG
I fear this snippet is all too telling, all too revealing of the James Baker and ISG notion of some type of “realism”.
What it is not is any type of summarized yet nonetheless substantive indication some real content as to why their recommendations are going to work, are actually going to result in something positive in the long term. What it is is a statement that the result has made them “feel” good, a result which avoids two politicized slogans: “cut and run” and “stay the course”.
Even allowing for the fact it’s a mere encapsulation, a summary statement, I find this formulation to be not only incredibly superficial but an indication of a lack of gravitas, beyond the gravitas which plumbs little more than domestic political sentiment.
Dr. Sanity has a thoughtful piece on Iraq, taking off from a post by Wretchard.
As I think Michael B alludes to, this sounds like the standard issue Washington D.C. compromise solution that is so popular with those suffering the dibilitating effects of Potomac Fever and which is always guaranteed to produce nothing useful.