Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

At long last, adults help formulate Iraq policy

By PHILIP GAILEY
Published October 15, 2006

If you tune out the delusional rhetoric coming from the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld war council, you can hear the voices of Republican realists who are beginning to shape a new debate on Iraq. It's about time. Senate Armed Forces Committee Chairman Sen. John Warner and former Secretary of State James Baker are making headlines by stating the obvious: The administration's Iraq policy is not working, and it's time to consider a change in course. And there's not much time left, maybe two to three months, before the deteriorating situation in Iraq reaches a point of no return.

Warner, usually an administration ally, recently returned from Iraq with a stark assessment of the situation. He said Iraq is "drifting sideways" and that the U.S. is at risk of failure in trying to secure Baghdad, the country's increasingly violent capital city. As Baghdad goes, so goes Iraq.

"I assure you, in two or three months, if this thing hasn't come to fruition and if this level of violence is not under control and this government able to function, I think it's a responsibility of our government internally to determine: Is there a change of course we should take?" Warner said. "And I wouldn't take off the table any option at this time."

It's not just the spike in sectarian violence that discourages Warner. He blamed the Iraqi government for failing to provide its people with basic necessities and for the slow pace of reconstruction, which he sees as essential to a stable Iraq.

Baker, a Bush family confidant and troubleshooter, said he agreed "absolutely" with Warner's assessment. Baker is the Republican co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, which is charged with coming up with recommendations for a course change in Iraq. In addition to Baker and his Democratic co-chairman Lee Hamilton, a former Indiana congressman, this bipartisan group includes such Republicans as former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and Democrats Vernon Jordan and William J. Perry, who was Bill Clinton's defense secretary.

The study group, which Baker organized with the White House's reluctant approval, wisely decided not to go public with its recommendations until after the November elections. Baker and Hamilton have indicated that their proposals are not likely to satisfy either Republican neo-cons or antiwar Democrats. They have made it clear the president's repeated calls to stay the course in Iraq will not be one of the group's recommendations.

Baker said "there are alternatives between stay the course and cut and run," but it's not clear what they are. In recent interviews, Baker agreed with Bush in rejecting a rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops, saying it would plunge Iraq into "the biggest civil war you've ever seen," with Syria, Turkey, Iran and "even our friends in the gulf" getting involved. He also dismissed a proposal by Sen. Joseph Biden and others calling for a three-way division of Iraq, giving the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites their own regions and a share of the country's oil revenue.

I see only lousy options in Iraq at this point, so it will be interesting to see what the Baker-Hamilton group comes up with, and whether its recommendations will be seriously considered by the president and his men. Baker seems to be working toward a Mideast framework that would involve Iraq's neighbors in ending the conflict. The nation should also hope he signals the president that it will be hard to change course in Iraq as long as Donald Rumsfeld is secretary of defense.

It must gall Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to hear Baker strongly suggesting that it's time to talk with our enemies. Baker, known as a pragmatist and skilled diplomat, says he already has held discussions with representatives of Iran and Syria, countries the administration has kept at arm's length, about Iraq's future.

"I believe in talking to your enemies," Baker said in a recent ABC News interview. "It's got to be hard-nosed, it's got to be determined. You don't give away anything, but in my view, it's not appeasement to talk to your enemies."

Democrats also have a constructive role to play in the new Iraq debate, especially if they win control of one or both houses of Congress next month. The temptation will be strong to use their committee chairmanships to open hearings to rehash the administration's miscalculations and deceptions in going to war. Democrats should resist that urge and conduct forward-looking hearings that focus on a bipartisan strategy for extracting U.S. forces from the quagmire Iraq has become.

Baker, who served the first President Bush as White House chief of staff and as secretary of state, brings something to the Iraq debate that this White House lacks: credibility with Republicans and Democrats, with America's allies and its foes. Bush 41 reportedly worries about the mess Bush 43 has made in Iraq, and he no doubt is hoping Baker, the family's consigliere in times of trouble, can point his cocky and inept son toward an exit strategy.

It can't be easy for this president to accept letting Baker bring some adult supervision of the administration's foreign policy. But it's a role someone should have been playing from the start.

[Last modified October 15, 2006, 07:41:31]