Today the NY sun published a story titled
"Baker's Panel Rules out Iraq Victory". The results are, quite frankly, nothing short of devastating:
WASHINGTON -- A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America, according to draft policy options shared with The New York Sun by commission officials.
Currently, the 10-member commission -- headed by a secretary of state for President George H.W. Bush, James Baker -- is considering two option papers, "Stability First" and "Redeploy and Contain," both of which rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable democracy in the near term.
The commission report notes how at this point in the war we basically have a choice between two different options. The first option: Make nice with the insurgents, stay in Iraq, and hope for the best. The second: Get the fuck out of Iraq ASAP. Follow me below the flip for more...
...the commission is headed toward presenting President Bush with two clear policy choices that contradict his rhetoric of establishing democracy in Iraq. The more palatable of the two choices for the White House, "Stability First," argues that the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad while the American Embassy should work toward political accommodation with insurgents. The goal of nurturing a democracy in Iraq is dropped.
Political accommodation of the insurgents? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the insurgents part of the "enemies of freedom" that Bush has resolutely committed to destroy nearly every time his lips move and manage to form semi-coherent words?
It is important to bear in mind that James Baker is not some guy working at a liberal think tank who is talking shit about the calamity that the Iraq war has become. Baker, as many of you already know, was a high level cabinet member during George H.W. Bush's presidency. Moreover, the current President Bush has previously committed to taking Baker's recommendations seriously:
Mr. Bush yesterday spoke approvingly of his father's old campaign manager and top diplomat, saying he looked forward to seeing "what Jimmy Baker and Lee Hamilton have to say about getting the job done."
How much you wanna bet that Bush regrets making a commitment to take these recommendations seriously now?
The president also said he was not averse to changing tactics. But he repeated that the strategic goal in Iraq is to build "a country which can defend itself, sustain itself, and govern itself." He added, "The strategic goal is to help this young democracy succeed in a world in which extremists are trying to intimidate rational people in order to topple moderate governments and to extend the caliphate."
But the president's strategic goal is at odds with the opinion of Mr. Baker's expert working groups, which dismiss the notion of victory in Iraq. The "Stability First" paper says, "The United States should aim for stability particularly in Baghdad and political accommodation in Iraq rather than victory."
Mr. Baker essentially gives the lie to the "Iraq as the beacon of hope and democracy in the Middle East" meme. According to Baker, democracy in Iraq is no longer a realistic scenario. Under a best case scenario, according to Baker, we can merely hope that the Iraqi government winds up being representative of its people. Even this, sadly, appears to be nothing more than wishful thinking.
Another significant piece of information in this piece is that Baker actually calls for (gasp!) diplomacy to help solve the impending problems facing our country, before they spiral out of control.
Both option papers would compel America to open dialogue with Syria and Iran, two rogue states that Iraqi leaders and American military commanders say are providing arms and funds to Iraq's insurgents. "Stabilizing Iraq will be impossible without greater cooperation from Iran and Syria," the "Stability First" paper says.
The option also calls on America to solicit aid and support from the European Union and the United Nations, though both bodies in the past have spurned requests for significant aid for Iraq.
Sounds a lot like "negotiating with terrorists", doesn't it? Wait a minute now....I thought only lefty, America hating hippy radicals wanted to do that. What ever happened to the good `ole days of "you're either with us or you're against us?" "Memories light the corners of my mind. Smiles we gave to one another for the way we were."
Even conservatives are beginning to hear the bells toll. George W. Bush, those bells are tolling for thee.
UPDATE: I wanted to update the piece to point out how the CW is evolving regarding how this story will be spun by Bush and the GOP.
First, it is important to note that for all the comments below noting how this information was leaked to help Bush and the GOP, I really don't see how it does that. Many have noted how republicans will use this report as an excuse to say they will change course in Iraq. However, IMHO it is way too late for the GOP to change the (at least rhetorical) course regarding Iraq for this election cycle. The candidates are commited to what they have said throughout their respective races, and doing some sort of coordinated change less than a month before the election would be akin to the ultimate flip-flop, and people would see this for the political calculus that it would be. Karl Rove learned way too much from the '04 election to try this little gambit. If this really is the GOP's plan for how to win in '04, then this election is already over. However, I really don't think this is the case.
Many commenters below also express the idea that this story was leaked on purpose by somebody with political motives. This is, in all likelihood, a correct assessment. This story could very well have been leaked by Baker himself. Where there is disagreement is regarding why this information was leaked.
To me, the most reasonable explanation seems to be that this leak is some form of intra-party squabbling. Baker is an untrustworthy fuckface, as we well know. He is interested in maintaining money and power for him and his ilk for the long haul, and while W has certainly enabled that agenda in the short term, it could very well slip away in the long run if something isn't done to at least give the appearance that there is a difference between the "elder statesmen" such as Baker et al. and Bush the younger. This hunch is given some credibility by Bush tactitly calling Baker names at a press conference the other day, while at the same time saying he will consider the advice given.
I believe Bush is pissed about this report, and is pissed at his Dad's friends for invading his turf. In any case, until I see a credible explanation for how this leak helps the Bush administration, I am going to stick with my initial hunch that we should hammer hard on this. Even Bush's dad thinks junior is dead wrong on Iraq, for God's sake. And I just don't see how in the world that hurts us.