December 5, 2006
Pre-Baker tension
The Baker report has been comprehensively leaked and almost equally comprehensively trashed – even though it is not due to be released until Wednesday.
But – for all the leaks – I’m still confused as to what exactly Baker and Co are going to recommend on the crucial question of troop withdrawals. It has been variously reported that Baker will call for a phased withdrawal, a redeployment of troops to an advisory role or – even – a new surge in troop levels, in a last ditch effort to stabilise the situation in Baghdad.
The one thing that everybody seems to agree is that Baker and Co will call for new diplomatic efforts in the region: fresh efforts to talk to Iran and Syria – and, almost certainly, more pressure on Israel to do a deal with the Palestinians.
But there are three big problems. First, none of these ideas are particularly new or radical. Second, there is strong evidence that President Bush is preparing to reject anything that smacks of “cut and run”, and is highly sceptical of the idea of engaging Iran and Syria. And finally – and worst of all – the situation in Iraq is so dreadful, that even the keenest advocates of the Baker group seem to fear that nothing it suggests is likely to make much difference anyway.
Faced with growing evidence of an uncontrollable debacle in Iraq, Washington insiders are doing what comes naturally – trying to make sure that somebody else takes the blame. Newsweek reports that one of Baker’s goals is to “cover your rear” – and I don’t think they mean this in a military sense.
Meanwhile the neo-cons, mindful that they are in the frame as the most fervent advocates of the war in the first place, are positioning themselves for the “Who lost Iraq?” debate. It seems that their position is going to be that the United States lost heart too early; that it never committed enough troops to the fight – and that therefore the ultimate blame for the disaster lies with some combination of George Bush (for being stupid), Donald Rumsfeld (for trying to fight the war with too few troops) and weak-kneed Democrats and liberals for pulling the plug too early. Writing in the Weekly Standard, Robert Kagan and William Kristol even make a brave stab at blaming Jim Baker himself – even though his report has not been issued yet, and was only commissioned because the situation was already clearly disastrous. They write of the Baker report:
"Although its recommendations will have no effect on American policy going forward, they have already had a very damaging effect throughout the world, and especially in the Middle East and in Iraq. For the Iraq Study Group, aided by supportive American media, has successfully conveyed the impression to everyone at home and abroad that the United States is about to withdraw from Iraq."
Potential presidential candidates are also positioning themselves. John McCain, the Republican front-runner gave an interesting interview over the weekend, in which he hinted that if the Bush administration is not prepared to commit enough troops to win the war, he might recommend total withdrawal. George Will argues that this position is both moral and serious – either provide the means to get the job done, or get out. This may be true. But it could also be a politically expedient way of getting McCain off the hook of advocating a position (more troops to Iraq), that is not likely to prove very popular in the 2008 election.
