(HOST) The “surge” of American troops continues in Baghdad with increasing American casualties and questionable results in the goal of stabilizing the Iraqi capital. So what happens after the surge? This morning’s commentator Barrie Dunsmore discusses what may be the Bush administration’s fall back position.
(DUNSMORE) While the White House seems to have won the latest round in the struggle with Democrats in Congress over the continued funding of the Iraq War, both Democratic opponents of the war and its Republican supporters agree on one thing. If measurable progress in reducing sectarian violence in Baghdad is not evident by September, there will have to be a change in policy. But what is Plan B – the option to go to – after the surge?
In the past few days, there have been some interesting signals coming from senior Bush administration officials who chose to remain anonymous as they launched their trial balloon. It seems the White House Plan B may be the Iraq Study Group report. To refresh your memory, that report was a detailed strategy for Iraq proposed by a group of ten prominent Republicans and Democrats, headed by former secretary of state James Baker, and former congressman and 9/11 Commission co-chairman Lee Hamilton. Its recommendations were given to President Bush and Congress last December.
Among other things, Baker-Hamilton recommended withdrawal of most American combat troops from Iraq by early 2008. Those troops that remained would do so in an advisory role with the Iraqi military while American Special Forces operations would continue against al-Qaeda fighters. Other proposals included putting pressure on the Iraqi government to pass legislation that would reduce sectarian tension among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds – such as the long stalled law that would guarantee each sect its fair share of the country’s oil revenues.
The Commission also called for invigorated American diplomacy – getting the neighboring countries involved in trying to stabilize Iraq and the region; holding direct high level talks with both Syria and Iran to that end; and aggressively trying to re-start the long stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Initially, the president politely received the Study group’s report but in short order he and his people were trashing it as a recipe for defeat.
In fact, the commission’s recommendations represented a bi-partisan way for the United States to disengage from Iraq to a level that would be militarily, economically and politically sustainable.
The White House would argue that it has tried some elements of Baker-Hamilton. There have been two regional conferences involving Iraq’s neighbors and some very tentative discussions with Syria and Iran. There’s a meeting involving American and Iranian ambassadors scheduled for next week in Baghdad. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has made some effort to prod the Palestinians and the Israelis. However the Bush administration remains divided within itself over these policies. Powerful neo-conservatives still in the White House continue to oppose them and therefore the efforts at diplomacy have come across as reluctant, rather than enthusiastic and the meager results reflect that.
Last December, it was possible that a bi-partisan approach to Iraq could have been embraced by both political parties. But given the intense partisanship of the past six months, I suspect Iraq will remain George W. Bush’s war.
Barrie Dunsmore is a veteran diplomatic and foreign correspondent for ABC News, now living in Charlotte.