Dale K. Robinson
The Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan committee appointed by Congress in March 2006, released its report on December 6, 2006.
Of the report, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) said “Today, the Iraq Study Group said Iraq is ‘grave and deteriorating.’ Like the Iraq Study Group, I urge the President to change course." Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) added "The Iraq Study Group report represents another blow at the policy of 'stay the course' that this administration has followed. Hopefully, this will be the end of that stay-the-course policy.” Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said “The only question is whether the White House will heed this clarion call and agree to change the perilous course we have been on in Iraq since Saddam Hussein fell and the chaos began. More of the same failed policy that depends on an open-ended commitment of our military will not bring America closer to success.” Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) said “The Iraq Study Group has spoken … Now it’s time for the President to listen and change the course in Iraq.”
On January 10th, 2007, President Bush announced a long hoped for change of course in Iraq. Bush said “We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group — a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.” He went on to say “… I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them — five brigades — will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.”
This does not sit well with most Democrats. Yet the much ballyhooed Iraq Study Group Report does support the very approach Bush has outlined. On page 50 of the report, the ISG says “We could, however, support a short term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.”
Bush also addressed concerns raised by Democrat lawmakers that we had tried this before and failed. Bush said “Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.”
The Iraq Study Group, like the Democrats, cautions against an open-ended commitment. Bush told the American public, “I have made it clear to the Prime Minister [Nouri al-Maliki] and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people — and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this.” Bush added that the week before, he told Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki that “The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of sectarian or political affiliation.”
The Iraq Study Group also cautions against an immediate withdrawal of US forces: “We also rejected the immediate withdrawal of our troops, because we believe that so much is at stake.”
Bush addressed that issue as well, saying, “Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States — and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq's borders and hunting down Al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America's efforts in Baghdad — or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale.”
Apparently, some lawmakers didn’t actually listen to what Bush said. Following Bush’s announcement, Senator Ted Kennedy again declared “Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam.” John Kerry called it a failed policy that had been tried before. Harry Reid, who said in December he could support a short term surge in forces, is now opposed. They ignore the fact that the Congressionally-chartered bipartisan Iraq Study Group supported a surge in forces and opposed the immediate withdrawal of US troops; they ignore that Bush has set conditions the Iraqi government has to meet and that Bush has declared that the US military commitment is not open-ended.
Secretly, I’d imagine they are pleased with Bush’s plan, however. It virtually guarantees that a Democrat will win the White House in 2008. Unless, of course, Bush is right. But we all know that can’t happen …
This column appeared in the January 20, 2007 issue of The Destin Log newspaper.