Posted on 11/12/2006 1:41:33 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
After meeting with President Bush tomorrow, a panel of prestigious Americans will begin deliberations to chart a new course on Iraq, with the goal of stabilizing the country with a different U.S. strategy and possibly the withdrawal of troops.
Tuesday's dramatic election results, widely seen as a repudiation of the Bush Iraq policy, has thrust the 10-member, bipartisan Iraq Study Group into the kind of special role played by the Sept. 11 commission. This panel, led by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former Indiana congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D), might play a decisive role in reshaping the U.S. position in Iraq, according to lawmakers and administration officials.
Those familiar with the panel's work predict that the ultimate recommendations will not appear novel and that there are few, if any, good options left facing the country. Many of the ideas reportedly being considered -- more aggressive regional diplomacy with Syria and Iran, greater emphasis on training Iraqi troops, or focusing on a new political deal between warring Shiites and Sunni -- have either been tried or have limited chances of success, in the view of many experts on Iraq. Baker is also exploring whether a broader U.S. initiative in tackling the Arab-Israeli conflict is needed to help stabilize the region.
Given the grave predicament the group faces, its focus is now as much on finding a political solution for the United States as on a plan that would bring peace to Iraq. With Republicans and Democrats so bitterly divided over the war, Baker and Hamilton believe that it is key that their group produce a consensus plan, according to those who have spoken with them.
That could appeal to both parties. Democrats would have something to support after a campaign in which they criticized Bush's Iraq policy.....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
BBBBWWWWAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
"To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects." Margaret Thatcher
bttt
Maybe a Linebacker III operation is called for to get the Iraqi government back up to speed.
The Baker-Hamilton Commission is about appeasing terrorist sponsoring countries such as Iran, and leaving Iraq without finishing the job.
You'd think that the Democrats would be advocating democracy in the Middle East, rather than a return to despotism.
Or is it that democracy is only for liberals?
Time to press John "I Have a Plan" Kerry for details. He`s even had an extra two years to fine tune it.
How to win in Iraq in 10 days.. I hope this was considered.
1. Tell Everyone in the Baghdad 100 nautical mile area they have 10 days to Leave all property behind and evacuate through a set of U.S. Checkpoints.
2. Level the remainder with a small tactical Nuke.
I can see some of the leading Senate Democrats joining with Bush in some sort of consensus on the Baker-Hamilton recommendations, but there is little reason to believe the long-time Rat pols who will head the key committees in the House are really interested in joining a consensus.
The House Rats with seniority are dedicated 60s ideologues who see Bush as another Nixon and, I predict, can't help themselves from trying to run the Vietnam playbook with encouragement from their left-wing base and the MSM.
With the loss of the stranglehold of the MSM on public opinion, I'm not convinced the House Rats will be able to prevail in the end, though.
It sure will tick them off. We'll go back to the same politics we've seen the last three years.
But it is not realistic. And doesn't show much intelligence.
a small tactical wont level 100 square miles :-p how about a tsar bomba?
Bush should ask the Iraqi Government to hold an election with one referendum on the ballot. Do you want the U.S. troops to remain in Iraq until there is a stable, secure government in place that can protect you against the terrorists and Militias....
Yes or No.... If he doesn't get at least a large plurality of Yes.. then its time to bring our troops home.
To bad about the sons tho, they really worked hard to keep Iraq "stable".
Maybe Baker will hire a few jihads for Saddam's Sons, you know, to keep Iraq free of "violence" and keep it "stable."
What planet do you live on? Your most inane post says wonders about how FR has become part of the problem - not part of the solution.
I think the libs and their media like to talk about a civilized ME, they just don't want to DO anything about it.
Which of course is the rub, and why Clinton did nothing for fear of low poll numbers, and he was correct of course.
He knew the American public.
This President also knew, and eventually they proved it to him on Nov 7, 2006, a day of American imposed infamy on itself.
but I think it will kill everything within 100 nm ?
Well, duh, what are the chances the panel will think of something no one else thought of.
Now, do I get a paycheck for that advise?
You speak wisdom and truth..
A Neutron might do that.
What do you disagree with?
You do these two things while rising up a smart Iraqi Army, and my guess is that Iraq's sectarian violence goes down considerably.
Then we can start drawing down forces. But not before.
"consensus never won a war"
If people would only understand the Delphi technique and the truth behind consensus building, they would run whenever they hear that word. Consensus is simply acting on emotion rather than facts and was started by Hegal and promoted by Communists.
Ummm....then it's just not a good option. ;-)
I recall distinctly that the President warned that the War on Terror would take time and sacrifices, which everybody agreed was the only choice they had against a ruthless enemy.
But once the imminent danger was removed for most Americans, the liberals asked, "Why should we stick our necks out for anybody else? Maybe they like having their heads chopped off. Who are we to say that's wrong? The terrorists are just expressing their First Amendment Rights."
Let's face it, America has lost the will to win. Because of that sad fact there is only one option in Iraq.
That option is to withdraw with whatever degree of safety we can provide so that our troops can be withdrawn without being clobbered.
That would not be my advise to President Bush. I would advise him to throw an iron ring around the oilfields to protect the world's oil flow.
I would then slowly withdraw our troops leaving sufficient forces to continue to protect the oilfields using our naval and air power to the fullest.
Iraq is a semi-civilized Muslim country. The Middle East has not advanced very much in the last two thousand years. It is very doubtful if the people of Iraq, or anywhere else in the Middle East, are ready for any form of self-government. Democracy is a long way in their future, if ever.
We cannot allow our nation to be sucked dry in a futile humanitarian attempt to make the Middle East a "better world." It won't happen. Get US OUT!
Is that 100 nm radius or 100 square nm?
Makes a difference. One tac nuke will obliterate 1 sq nm. 3000 tac nukes would be needed to obliterate 100 nm radius.
Wow - another freeper who wants to turn a country with oil over to the jihadists.
I don't know when conservatives became part of the cut and run crowd; it's sad to see it here.
WaPo gives it such a cheery spin . . .
Maliki will not do anything about the Shia militias, he's made that clear. So, that being the case, let's temporarily send 50,000 additional soldiers and marines to Iraq and crush the Sunni insurgency in the Anbar Province, then turn to Baghdad and kick the sh*t out the Mehdi Army and arrest Sadr. We must help rid the country of the illegal militias on both sides, and Al Qaeda, before diplomacy and economics come into play.
A fact many of Freepers should of learned years ago. If they had not all been so busy screaming their Dinosaur Con dogmas, they might of tried actually learning some fundemental facts about Iraq. They could read any of a dozen articles Freeper Sandrat posted here every day. They seem to have this very odd reluctance to bother learning ANY thing at all about Iraq. But they do say Dinosaurs have very very small brains. Perhaps there is simply no room left after the Neo-Isolationist slogans are hardwired there.
Too bad none of these Dinocons would ever shut up long enough to learn the facts on Iraq.
Like Journalists, Politicians have one really, really obnoxious trait. A complete inability to admit error. There was NO way the DC Political Media Complex was EVER going to admit they were all wrong about Iraq and Bush was all right. The Baker panel was just their way to put their stamp on a war Bush and Rummy all ready won
***that their group produce a consensus plan***
Fighting wars by consensus because Dems and Repubs disagree?
Doesn't sound like a plan for victory. More like a stalemate. Gate-Baker still sounds like a bad nomination to me. If we are gonna stay in Iraq we should be there to keep 'taking the fight to the terrorists'.
He's pointing out how Baker used to be SEC of STATE. They are usually in favor of status quo like negotiating with Iran to give them 'influence' in the region.
That is Cold War containment policy and will not help us iradicate terrorist groups in the long run. It will allow them to foment under the protection of terrorist regimes till they have enough power and time to attack on U.S. soil again.
The original strategy was to take out an unfriendly regime and make ourselves a new ally in the WOT where we could set up bases to keep 'taking the fight to the enemy'.
If anything we should take the Kurds up on their offer and have a reliable military base there. They have been a good ally to us. Sure it's been in their own self-interests but it's the same on our side, I'm sure.
All the more reason to reject the Gates-Baker nomination in this Congress and insist on 'hearings' in the next.
Maybe we can delay it long enough till the Republican primaries where a candidate for POTUS can speak out and turn things around.
This is the first time I have seen much of a list of the members of this group. It is shocking to me. Most have nver been elected to anything. How did Congress create this? I suggest that we form a shadow study group of people like George Allen and JD Hayworth. They also have time and they are not senile.
This shadow group has been lurking around Bush since before he was elected in 2000. They are members of his father's administration.
Remember Baker stepping in during the recounting in 2000 in FL?
Almost all the people around Bush are from the Reagan/Bush Sr. era. Rumsfeld/Cheney/Powell/Rice. Now it's Gates/Baker. It's been a perpetual struggle of the doves vs. hawks and it looks like the doves are winning currently.
All the more reason to push for new leadership in RNC Chairman, Congress and candidate for POTUS. We gotta clean out the State Dept. Something both Powell and Rice have failed to do.
That's why I'm so in favor of Mark Sanford who is a terms limit guy. He was in Washington as the Class of '94 but voluntarily left in 2000. He's currently working on restructuring the Government of South Carolina and just won re-election. He doesn't like the status quo.
Supporting Cast: Bush 41's national-security team, in 1991. From far left, Scowcroft, Gates, Cheney, Quayle, Baker, Bush and Powell.
Time Out: Bush 41 and Gates and a Texas A&M football game earlier this month
fyi
Member of Iraq advisory group offers somber analysis
By Frank Davies
San Jose Mercury News
WASHINGTON - The situation in Iraq is "even worse than we thought," with key Iraqi leaders showing no willingness to compromise to avoid increasing violence, said Leon Panetta, a member of the high-powered advisory group that will recommend new options for the war.
The Iraq Study Group, including Panetta, plans to meet with President Bush and his national security team Monday at the White House, and gather more data on the war through briefings and interviews this week. Panetta was chief of staff in the Clinton White House.
The blue-ribbon group, headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and ex-Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, plans to make recommendations to the Bush administration and Congress next month on new ways to handle the war. Members said they wanted to wait until after the election, to remove a debate about Iraq from campaign pressures.
After the election, their influence grew and their job became more urgent.
Fueled by discontent over the war, the Democrats scored a sweeping victory, retaking the House and the Senate. U.S. casualties have mounted in recent weeks. Bush signaled new flexibility on Iraq last week by replacing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with former CIA chief Robert Gates - a member of the Iraq Study Group before accepting his new job.
Many officials in Washington hope that this group of insiders will offer a way out of Iraq, and give some political cover to Bush and a Democratic Congress.
"This week, the pressure on us just went up a few hundred degrees," Panetta said Friday. He is a former Democratic congressman who heads the Panetta Institute at California State University-Monterey Bay.
Panetta would not discuss the options the group is considering, noting that members have not reached a consensus yet, but talked about what he has learned about Iraq. The group spent three days in Baghdad in early September and has been briefed by military, intelligence and diplomatic officials.
Private assessments by government officials are much more grim than what is said in public, Panetta said, "and we left some of those sessions shaking our heads over how bad it is in Iraq."
U.S. forces can't control sectarian violence and powerful militias. One of the most disturbing findings, Panetta said, is that many Shiite religious leaders who are a big part of the government have no interest in deals or compromises with Sunnis and other groups, and are "playing for time because they say it's their show."
After years of Bush administration rhetoric about establishing democracy in Iraq, Panetta said the only achievable goal is a rough stability, "which can't be done by the military. It requires political reconciliation."
One scaled-down goal, he added, is "how do you maintain a low-level civil war so it doesn't blow up into a full-scale civil war?"
The Iraq group is looking at an array of options, including a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces, an accelerated training of Iraqi forces, and diplomatic efforts to involve Iraq's neighbors, according to several media accounts.
Some congressional leaders and retired generals criticized Rumsfeld for arrogance and an inability to admit mistakes and make adjustments in Iraq. Gates will be different, Panetta said.
"He's an old-school pragmatist, like Baker and Brent Scowcroft," Panetta said. "He's flexible and wants to get the job done. He always asked incisive questions, and knows what went wrong in Iraq."
Gates expressed his frustration with the administration's Iraq policy during a visit last year to the Bay Area.
He shared the stage with former Clinton administration national security adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger at a May 2005 lecture at the Panetta Institute.
Both men expressed surprise that resentment of U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and elsewhere had not resulted in suicide bomb attacks inside the United States.
"I too am puzzled by the fact that there haven't been suicide bombers," Gates said. "That's not an invitation, just an observation. We should count ourselves very fortunate."
Berger and Gates both were critical of the intelligence apparatus that allowed President Bush to receive false information concluding that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
"Fundamentally, it was just a lousy piece of work," Gates said.
The key to a new policy on Iraq, Panetta said, is whether Bush will be flexible, and whether Democratic leaders in Congress will try to work with a president who said during the campaign that voting for Democrats would help terrorists.
"Both sides have been in trench warfare for months, and the real question is whether they will be able to put down their grenades and bayonets and pick up the tools you need to get something done," he said.
The seismic shift in power this week reminded Panetta of 1994, when he was in the Clinton White House, rocked by the rejection of voters and the loss of Congress to the GOP.
"We were in a state of shock for days, and then we adjusted," he said. "You can actually get things done in a divided government."
The Democrats' big victory Tuesday also reminded Panetta of voter discontent in California during the 2003 recall election: "Voters were angry over gridlock, extreme partisanship, the failure to deal with crises - and they took it out on the party in power."
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/politics/15997141.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.