Daylight through the Crack

At his press conference on Wednesday the president seemed to crack open a heretofore locked door on the subject of changing the U.S. strategy in Iraq. I think there was daylight coming through that crack. He said that if the American strategy in Iraq was not working, American would adjust and change the strategy.

The “if” in that statement is big, of course, but buried in the president’s comment is a recognition that our current strategy might not be working. The president certainly didn’t admit that the strategy is flawed and he may still believe that we’re pursuing the proper course, but changes are often made in Washington only by taking very small steps; sometimes those steps are forward and sometime they’re sideways.

The president may be responding to recent cracks in the Republican armor that has consistently protected his position regarding Iraq. Last week Senator John Warner, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a staunch supporter of the administration’s policies in Iraq, returned from a visit to Baghdad and detonated his own IED on the subject by saying the situation in Iraq is “drifting sideways” and that the U.S. should consider a “change of course” if the violence there doesn’t diminish within the next 60 – 90 days.

“Sideways” movement can come in various forms, some positive and some negative. “Drifting” sideways is negative because there is no intention or direction in it. What I sensed in the president’s comments yesterday was an intentional move to the side that could be a precursor to a new direction. The questions are: how long will it take and will the situation in Iraq allow that timeline? Warner may have kick-started an accelerated reassessment.

Republican Senator Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, responded to Warner’s comments by noting a “growing sense of unease” among her Reb colleagues because the development of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi troops and security forces have not led to any reduction in the violence. In fact, new reports yesterday indicate that sectarian violence has tripled since February, and reports this morning indicate that attacks on U.S. forces are up 43% since the summer.

Two days after Senators Warner and Collins spoke out, former Secretary of State James Baker, a stalwart Republican, stepped to the microphone and calmly pulled the pin on a grenade. He didn’t throw the grenade but now everyone knows that it’s going to roll from his hand sometime relatively soon.

Baker is the co-chair of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which was formed in March with the support of Congress and the somewhat reluctant acceptance of the White House. This group has been tasked to reassess the Iraq strategy and is expected to issue its report to congress and the president shortly after the election in November. Mr. Baker offered a sneak preview of the coming attraction.

Baker said he expected the commission to depart from the president’s repeated admonition to “stay the course”, noting that the panel “believes there are alternatives between the stated alternatives…of ‘stay the course’ and ‘cut and run’.” Baker added that he agreed with the timetable suggested by Senator Warner regarding the consideration and implementation of an alternative strategy in Iraq.

Baker touched off another loaded discussion by strongly suggesting that the White House should conduct direct talks with countries that it has been unwilling to meet with face to face, including Iran and Syria. (He didn’t mention North Korea, but it’s impossible to leave them off this list, especially given developments of the last week.) Baker concluded that such talks should be “hard nosed” and that, “You don’t give away anything, but in my view, it’s not appeasement to talk to your enemies.”

Take that Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld. A comment like that makes me wonder what would have been different if the president had accepted the twice-offered recommendation of his former chief of staff, Andrew Card, to replace Rumsfeld with Baker.

Media outlets are reporting that members of the Iraq Study Group and White House officials have privately indicated that Baker has been talking on a regular basis with the president and his national security advisor, Steven Hadley. Those sources are saying that Baker is unlikely to publicly discuss possible commission conclusions that don’t have the president’s tacit approval.

The political debate about the Iraq Study Group turns on the timing of its report. Conventional wisdom is that the Dims want it released before the election in order to bolster their campaign criticism of the administration’s policy in Iraq, while the Rebs want it delayed until after the election for obvious reasons. Baker may have rendered that debate somewhat moot and the suggestion that he did so with the president’s blessing is very interesting.

While the Dims were quick to jump on the Warner and Baker comments as an indication that “even the Republicans don’t support the president’s position on Iraq,” the president may be thinking that this discussion will blunt the Dims position that the administration is intractable and that the only path to change is by booting the Rebs out of power. The president is a shrewd politician and no one should jump to the conclusion that longtime allies like Warner and Baker are jumping ship on the commander-in-chief. They may be out front clearing the path for the president’s new direction in a way that allows him to save face after three years of chanting the “stay the course” mantra.

For the moment, I’m going to regard these developments as daylight in an otherwise darkening situation.