Is the Sun Rising or Setting?

Yesterday, I wrote about the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan 10-member commission that was established by Congress with the approval of the president and is headed by James Baker, former secretary of state and chief of staff for Bush I. This commission has been asked to assess the war in Iraq and recommend a new strategy there. To say there is a great deal of political anticipation regarding the commission’s findings and recommendations is an understatement.

Because these findings are politically volatile the panel has agreed to hold them until after the November election. Baker says the panel is likely to present its findings in December. Well, that was the plan. Yesterday, a draft of the commission’s report was leaked to The New York Sun and the primary finding is beyond significant – the Baker commission concludes there is essentially no prospect of achieving either victory or democracy in Iraq.

It’s important to understand two options that the commission has ruled out: 1) making minor fixes to the current war plan but keeping the long-term vision of a democracy in Iraq with regular elections; and 2) having coalition forces focus their attacks only on al-Qaeda and not the wider insurgency.

The commission is apparently focusing on presenting Congress and the president two options, "Stability First" and "Redeploy and Contain," each of which are contrary to the idea of establishing a democracy in Iraq. The "Stability First" option is probably more acceptable to the president. It says the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad while U.S. diplomats work out a “political accommodation” with the insurgents. The goal of building a democracy is abandoned. The recommendation to accommodate the insurgents is about as far from the current policy as it can possibly be. People like Cheney and Rumsfeld must regard that as the epitome of “emboldening the enemy” and damn near treasonous.

The "Redeploy and Contain" option calls for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, though no timetable has been agreed to. According to the Sun, this option says our top priority should be minimizing U.S. casualties while making it clear that “U.S. redeployment does not reduce our determination to attack terrorists wherever they are." It’s not clear how both of those objectives are to be met.

The president said yesterday that he’s looking forward to seeing what the commission has to say "about getting the job done." The president also said he isn’t against changing direction in Iraq, but he reiterated that his strategic goals are to build "a country which can defend itself, sustain itself, and govern itself," and “to help this young democracy succeed in a world in which extremists are trying to intimidate rational people in order to topple moderate governments and to extend the caliphate."

Extend the caliphate? The Caliphate was abolished by official action of the Turkish government in 1924 and has been dormant and gone unclaimed since. Someone in the Islamic world may have visions of reestablishing the Caliphate, but there’s nothing to extend at this time in history. That presidential utterance is another attempt to paint a picture of a monolithic Islamic movement that seeks to dominate the world. What would this administration say and do if it couldn’t peddle fear on a daily basis?

In any event, the president’s goals are at odds with the commission findings, which dismiss the idea of victory in Iraq. As noted, the "Stability First" option says, "The United States should aim for stability particularly in Baghdad and political accommodation in Iraq rather than victory." Even the Democrats haven’t dared to utter words like that, so it will somewhat stunning if the Baker commission actually ends up speaking in such terms.

On the "Charlie Rose Show," Mr. Baker distinguished between a Middle East that was "democratic" and one that was merely "representative," saying, "If we are able to promote representative government, not necessarily democracy, in a number of nations in the Middle East and bring more freedom to the people of that part of the world, it will have been a success." That’s no small distinction, and it’s the first time that someone close to the president has suggested that that “representative” should file for divorce from its partner “democracy”.

Reportedly, both options being advanced by the commission require the U.S. to communicate directly with Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration has been loath to do. "Stabilizing Iraq will be impossible without greater cooperation from Iran and Syria," the "Stability First" option paper says. This option also says that the U.S. must solicit support from the European Union and the U.N., something that has been more than problematic for this administration.

It’s hard to overstate the significance of these potential findings, especially if they’re advanced by someone like James Baker. Add to them the content of the recently released NIE and the comments by John Warner and other congressional Republicans, and you have the makings of a palace coup. Only this time the emperor may get dressed and go with the rebel flow so he can save face and still claim to be “getting the job done”.

Then, toss into this mix the comments on Thursday from British Army Chief of Staff General Sir Richard Dannat, who said that the continued presence of Western troops in Iraq is exacerbating the security problem there and elsewhere and that those troops should get out of Iraq “sometime soon”. British troop levels in Iraq have been quietly reduced from a high of 40,000 to only 7,000 now. If the Brits pack up and leave, either before or after Tony Blair steps down next year, the coalition, which has been mostly a Potemkin village since its inception, will be a thing of the past. I have to believe the administration will take some kind of decisive action, i.e., a new strategic direction, before that happens.

The next couple of months, if not weeks, if not days, should prove to be very interesting.