Iraq Reality Check

Iraq—Reality Check

December 7, 2006

On a day when ten more U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq, the Iraq Study Group released a report that is “nothing less than a repudiation of the Bush administration's diplomatic and military approach to Iraq and to the whole region,” and a “blueprint for a fundamentally different approach” to the war in Iraq. The report details the “grave” situation there, as well as the many policy failures that have led to this point. Although the report is a “stunning indictment” of Bush's failures, the recommendations are “still couched in language vague enough to allow the president to pretend it is the “new way forward his aides are now talking up, rather than a timetable for withdrawal, which is on Mr. Bush's no-go list.”

• · The report issues a strong dose of reality to the administration. Tony Snow described the report as “an acknowledgment of reality”—a reality the administration has ignored for years. (In October, Bush claimed “we're winning” in Iraq.) “The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating,” the report says. Bush's Iraq policy “is not working, as the level of violence in Iraq is rising and the government is not advancing national reconciliation.” “The ability of the United States to influence events within Iraq is diminishing.” The language echoes the sentiments of incoming Defense Secretary Robert Gates' admission that we are not currently winning in Iraq. The report also chastises the administration for its “significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq.”
  
  
• The report is vague about a timeline for withdrawal. The Iraq Study Group was “careful to modulate its wording to avoid phrases and rigid timelines that might alienate the White House.” The report calls for U.S. troops to shift into supporting roles for the Iraqi army, and by the “first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq.” The panel does not make clear what kind of “unexpected developments” it has in mind, and the careful use of “could” rather than “will” leaves the administration with ample wiggle room to continue to support “conditions-based” troop levels. The Center for American Progress' Larry Korb explains: “Not setting a date for a complete withdrawal of all of our military forces from the country will leave the Iraqi government and military believing they can continue to count on U.S. military power to support them come what may. ... We simply cannot leave our brave soldiers in harm's way if progress is not made pacifying the country over the next 18 months.”
  
  
• The report calls for tough diplomacy—something progressives have been saying for months. The report argues that “Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have bungled diplomacy in the region with unrealistic objectives and narrow strategies.” The report calls for a New Diplomatic Offensive and an international Support Group structure under which the “United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria.” “You talk to your enemies, not just your friends,” James Baker said yesterday. He added: “We're talking not about talking to be talking. We're talking about tough diplomacy.” (Strategic Redeployment called for ”strong diplomacy” in the region, and suggested peace talks involving Iraq's internal actors and Iraq's neighbors, including Iran, “who have an interest in making sure Iraq does not degenerate into further chaos.”)