James Baker And The Iraq Study Group

The Times reports on the work-in-progress of the Iraq Study Group led by James Baker III, whose goal seems to be to give Bush political cover for some strategy other than "stay the course" in Iraq:

G.O.P.’s Baker Hints Iraq Plan Needs Change

By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — James A. Baker III, the Republican co-chairman of a bipartisan panel reassessing Iraq strategy for President Bush, said Sunday that he expected the panel would depart from Mr. Bush’s repeated calls to “stay the course,” and he strongly suggested that the White House enter direct talks with countries it had so far kept at arm’s length, including Iran and Syria.

...

But the “Iraq Study Group,” created by Mr. Baker last March with the encouragement of some members of Congress to come up with new ideas on Iraq strategy, has already talked to some representatives of Iran and Syria about Iraq’s future, he said.

His comments Sunday offered the first glimmer of what other members of his study group, in interviews over the past two weeks, have described as an effort to find a politically face-saving way for Mr. Bush slowly to extract the United States from the war. “I think it’s fair to say our commission believes that there are alternatives between the stated alternatives, the ones that are out there in the political debate, of ‘stay the course’ and ‘cut and run,’ ” Mr. Baker said.

Possible alternatives include "Play the course", i.e, finish the eighteen holes and leave, and "jog the course", which is not nearly as quick or dramatic as cutting and running but has a similar end result.

This next bit would be fascinating if true:

The Iraq Study Group, created with the reluctant blessing of the White House, includes notable Republicans and Democrats, among them William J. Perry, a former defense secretary under President Clinton; former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York; the former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor; and Vernon E. Jordan Jr., a longtime civil rights leader. Mr. Baker’s Democratic co-chairman is Lee H. Hamilton, the former Congressman who once served as the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and was co-chairman of the 9/11 commission.

For Giuliani to be associated with a credible bipartisan solution in Iraq would be a boon to his Presidential candidacy.  However, although he was initially a member he resigned from the Iraq Study Group last May, citing time commitments.

 

Comments

[Forbes]

As "exit stategies" go, winning and losing seem to be the only alternatives.

If there was certainty that Iraq would be a basket case for 30 years, i.e. Vietnam, after cutting and running and losing, that might be a plausible alternative. For all the comarisons of Iraq to Vietnam, I don't see a 30 year basket case outcome.

[Syl]

Maliki has almost 80% approval so I think we have no business imposing a different political solution on the Iraqis.

Someone's characterization of our economy I saw on Cavuto applies to Iraq as well.

Some want us to be more forceful: more troops, attack Iran and Syria elements supporting the insurgency and sectarian violence.

Some want us to be more meek and redeploy.

This proposal sounds like a middle ground, it's not, it's a drastic change.

I think the not too hot, not too cold, approach we're using in Iraq is just right.

Iraq, the Goldilocks War.

(We're not just shooting guns, we're negotiating with tribes who are waivering between al Qaeda and the political process.
We've already got something like 37 of the 41 tribes in Anbar onboard with the political process...this is nothing to dismiss or walk away from and tremendous progress is being made.)

[A.S.]

Sandra Day O'Connor is on the case! Her foreign policy expertise will surely lead to a favorable outcome.

[Neo]

The best solution seem to be to have Bush declare himself the "Mahdi." The US, in typical Afghan traditional style, could buyoff enough Muslim clerics to make it stick.

All that is left then is North Korea.

[cboldt]

-- All that is left then is North Korea. --

President Bush's speech today was as much directed to Iran and Syria as it was to NK. Read it again. If NK sells nuclear weapons or material, then whatever US reaction follows is on the hands of NK. That's a not-so subtle suggestion to "don't buy that stuff from NK."

[Dale in Atlanta]

James Baker was one of the worst SecState's in history; read his takedown over at Powerline!

This is nonsense, and I hope to all the deities I can muster, that this does NOT come to pass!

[Mackenzie]

James Baker was one of the best Secretaries of State in modern times. Compare his achievements to the record of all who have filled the position since. Ask yourself - are we as a country better off now than we were then? There is no comparison. The guys at Powerline as well as Dale are still drinking the koolaid.

[anon]

Mackenzie

Baker tried and failed to prop up the Soviet Union. He tried and succeeded in propping up Saddam Hussein.

Are these the achievments you are speaking of?

[Dale in Atlanta]

Mackenzie: Ah, ....I never said any SecState's SINCE Baker were any good!

My god, we had Albright and Powell as follow-ups!

Neither was worth a damn!

I'm still evaluating Rice, though for now, I'm leaning towards favorable.

But that doesn't excuse Baker; terrible SecState, and the Powerline analysis is dead on!

Better off now than we were then? What the hell are you talking about?

Vis a vis what?

Is that a rhetorical without any context or what?

[patch]

Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's BS detector must have went off big time. He's the guy who kicked Yasser Arafat out of an event at Lincoln Center, when every one else was kowtowing to that midget terrorist. A pity some of the people in the State Department weren't as prescient.

This so called "Baker Commission" is a waste of time. Jim Baker is an Arabist from way back, and will want us to return to the "Status quo ante" where the USA supports the strongman/dictator/king and screw any chance of democracy in the Mideast.

[The Unbeliever]

Stop me if you've heard this one already: A SecDef, a mayor, a judge, and a civil rights activist walk into a bar...

Well, I don't remember the punchline, but I'm pretty sure the end result wasn't a cohesive foreign policy.

[TexasToast]

So, We talk tough like we have a handfull of Aces, NoKo calls the bet and flips us the one fingered salute, and our army is, well, overstreatched....

Great job, Hoss! How much is, er, was in this pot?

[The Unbeliever]

NoKo calls the bet and flips us the one fingered salute, and our army is, well, overstreatched....

Did I just hear an veiled call to invade North Korea?

[jerry]

Great, let's see how they spin that lame "cut and run" nonsense on their critics while Baker's covering our fast tracks out of Baghdad.

[Rick Ballard]

"Did I just hear an veiled call to invade North Korea?"

Nah, it's her entry for today's stupid non sequitur contest. It's really pretty good on that level.

[TexasToast]

UnB

Nope. Just trying to make the point that we have a quite a few less cards in our hand in any confrontation with NoKo with our committment to Iraq. Scratch one credible threat......

Baker's "mission" is to get us out of a war we are losing and avoid the charge of "cut and run". I mean, the opinion tide is turning, folks ......

[JM Hanes]

"...citing time commitments."

As in, I don't have time for this shit.

[Neo]

our army is, well, overstreatched

Anybody, who believes the North Koreans will be swayed to stop the development of a nuke by military force, is completely out of touch with the situation on the Korean Peninsula. The number of civilians and military that would be put in immediate peril by the breaking of the armistice is somewhere over 5 million.

Development of a nuke is considered by the North to be a matter of extreme deterrence, who's acquisition was worth the gamble of US military action.

Simply, they were going to do it no matter, period.

So many businessmen and politicians always believe in the "magic of the deal."

Well NoKo, and for that matter the Iranians, don't give a shit about the "deal," they want the "nuke." Until these folks get their heads out of the asses, they will be yet another "failure" ahead.

[JM Hanes]

TT:

"Scratch one credible threat......"

As Rick might say, Cue Inigo.

I'm not sure your idea of what constitutes a credible threat is as credible as you think it is. Reminds me of Democrats defending their votes on Iraq: "We gave the Prez permission to bluff, not invade!"

[Neo]

"...citing time commitments."

as in I'm not going to get my hands tied to some bipartisan POS report that is doomed to the wastebasket otherwise.

First rule of politics .. never take a position

[Neo]

Take a look at the list of members ..

Giuliani is the only [former] member that doesn't consider himself retired.

[The Unbeliever]

Nope. Just trying to make the point that we have a quite a few less cards in our hand in any confrontation with NoKo with our committment to Iraq. Scratch one credible threat......

I don't recall "invading and occupying North Korea" as being one of our credible threats in the first place. Not unless you thought China and Russia would have twiddled their thumbs while the Americans swarmed the region, and South Korea would've gladly aceded to the inevitable shelling of Seoul, and the notoriously concilatory UN would have sanctioned the idea in the first place.

The only person who seems to share your belief that invasion was a credible threat is Kim Jong Il, which casts an interesting perspective on your worldview. (Though to be fair, apparenly Kim thinks it's still a credible threat; maybe you two should hold a multilateral summit to hash out the disconnect?)

Besides which, everything I've heard from the generals on Capitol Hill, during the innumerable meetings and hearings Congress holds each day, is that our armed forces can currently handle North Korea AND Iraq AND Afghanistan simultanously, should the need arise. (Whether they can handle those 3 AND Iran...) Do you know something the generals don't know? Why don't you knock on the Pentagon's front door and set the poor dears straight?

[Rick Ballard]

TT,

The army of the Republic of Korea has more effectives available than their are active duty members of the US Army. They are all stationed reasonably close to North Korea.

One might think that troop availability isn't the problem.

If one thought, that is.

[Neo]

In all fairness, I want to give credit where credit is due, so my hat is off to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton who did stop the development of a uranium based nuke by North Korea, instead they have a plutonium based nuke.

Now how did that happen ? It's always the one that got away.

[TexasToast]

Who said anything about invading and occupying North Korea? That's stupider than invading and occupying Iran. Seoul sits in conventional artillery range as we speak.

The point remains that with our military fully engaged, our diplomatic leverage is somewhat reduced. So why the tough talk?

Have you guys ever considered the possibility that the combination of our "tough talk" and our removal of Saddam makes the acquisition of nukes by the likes of Iran and NoKo actually rational? I mean, we just proved we are "crazy enough" to invade a country for the sole purpose of regime change. We have been baiting a cornered, scared animal. How does that make sense?

Diplomacy is doomed to fail if you go into it thinking its doomed to fail.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

I remember James Baker in a Press Conference before the first Gulf War saying that war was about something the American public can understand; 'jobs'.

Which fits in nicely with Vernon Jordan's qualifications, since he was given the assignment to find a job for Monica Lewinsky out of Washington DC.

[The Unbeliever]

Hoo boy, I thought it couldn't get funnier.

Who said anything about invading and occupying North Korea? That's stupider than invading and occupying Iran.

I blame the joker who put it this way:

our army is, well, overstreatched....Just trying to make the point that we have a quite a few less cards in our hand in any confrontation with NoKo with our committment to Iraq.

What, exactly, are you expecting the Army to provide in terms of threats? Form a kumbaya circle around NK and lay seige to the joint?

To be overly broad, your options are Rumsfeld's "swift decapitation" doctrine, the Powell "overwhelming force" doctrine, the Clintonian "targeted strikes with cruise missiles" folly, and a couple of nukes. The first two can be summed up as "invade and occupy", and seem to be the best candidates for your overstretched accusation. The latter two options aren't hampered by our committments in Iraq/Afghanistan at all. So unless you're equating military force with invasion, your statements about overstretching make no sense.

Seoul sits in conventional artillery range as we speak.

No kidding. What was that you were babbling about "credible threat" again? Or does your vision of military action include sustained carpet bombing for 100 miles north of the DMZ?

We have been baiting a cornered, scared animal. How does that make sense?

I fail to see how letting that rabid animal run amok and threaten people is a superior alternative.

Diplomacy is doomed to fail if you go into it thinking its doomed to fail.

And sometimes diplomacy is doomed to fail even if you hope it'll succeed. At that point saying "nice doggie" becomes irrelevant, and it's time to start talking to your neighbors about putting the dog down.

[moneyrunner]

I am always amused by people who deny the need or desire to use the military option and then go on to decry the fact that we can’t use the military option because it is otherwise occupied. There is a name for the mental state that allows people to hold two diametrically opposed assumptions simultaneously, only I have forgotten the term.

[JM Hanes]

TT:

"Who said anything about invading and occupying North Korea?"

If not, the relevance of your observation that "our army is, well, overstreatched...." seems, well, irrelevant. You're talking about a credible threat...of precisely what then?

[JM Hanes]

moneyrunner:

I wish I knew the term myself, because it is emblematic of Democrat foreign policy discussions.

[TexasToast]

ISTM that NoKo timed this threat - we are committed elsewhere - everyone knows it - we have POed the world community.

As luck would have it - they ALL see the same destabilization threat in the xenophobic NoKo case - even China. They see it here - they don't see it in Iran. It is going to be a rought ride.

[clarice]

I think Kim did it for entirely internal reasons--the strategic problems of war with NKorea are the same whether or not we have troops elsewhere.

[Dale in Atlanta]

The same IDIOTS who undermined our own Government, military, and troops, so we could LOSE the Vietnam war, are the same idiots who....

Refused to act when the Iranians seized our Diplomatic property and hostages for 444 days, are the same idiots who.....

Refused to kill a meglomanical Terrorist leader named Osama Bin Laden when he had already attacked the US half a dozen times, declared war on the US, and was sitting in a mud fort in the wilds of Afghanistan, and the the same idiots who......

Refused to act when the Hutus and the Tutsi's slaughtered each other in the 100,000's, and are the same idiots who.....

Demanded we withdraw from Somalia when things got a bit rought, and are the same idiots who are.....

Demanding we surrender in Iraq, and cut and run as soon as possible, and are the same idiots who claim they support the GWOT and the Afghan invasion, but if they get in power, will surrender there, just after they surrender in Iraq, and they are the EXACT same IDIOTS, who several months ago, when NK was preparing to launch ICBM's, DEMANDED Bush attack the missiles on the launchpad, thus launching a "pre-emptive" war against North Korea, and, they are the same idiots who are now talking tough again, about NK, demanding action....

The bottomline, the ONLY reason they are talking tough, just like that bully in HS, you had to smash his nose in because he just pushed you too far one time, and thereafter, he would get up and act like he was coming after you, so HIS friends could "hold him back"-type of thing, well, that's the only reason they're demanding military action now, is because they KNOW we cannot, and will not do it at this time.

So, they're talking tough, KNOWING it can't be done!

What a bunch of, of....of (Hmmm, what's the worst insult I can think of....Hmmmmm)...

.....LEFTISTS! With ALL the CONTEMPT in the world!

[anonymous]

Empire's a bitch, ain't it?

[Pofarmer]

The point remains that with our military fully engaged, our diplomatic leverage is somewhat reduced. So why the tough talk?

You might want to strike up and take a look at how many carrier groups are currently in that part of the world.(I beleive at least two, one always stationed in Japan) Guided missle cruisers, ballistic missle subs also capable of firing cruise missles. Attack subs. This is in addition to Air Force assets currently stationed on Guam, within striking range of NK. This is in addition to Air Force assets currently stationed in Japan. This is in addition to the B2 Fleet which is currently sitting in MO at Whiteman just waiting for something to do. This is in addition to our B1 Fleet. A small portion of which is currently assissting in Afghanistan. This is in addition to our B52 Fleet which is currently looking for something to do. This is in addition to all the Artillary, Armor, and Ground Forces(Both U.S. and Korean) currently already stationed in S Korea. This is in addition to the South Korean Air Force.

We don't have the capability to do what? Exactly?

We have been baiting a cornered, scared animal. How does that make sense?

It makes perfect sense if you intend to kill it.

[Neo]

A Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates.

Even this wacko says only "As Many As 250,000".