Power to the People

The long-anticipated report from the Iraq Study Group came out on Wednesday. The overall message may be summed up on page one where the ISG declares that “the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating”. For the next 100 pages, call it what you will, the ISG essentially repudiates at least the last three years of the Bush administration’s policy and strategy in Iraq.

The ISG advances a 79-point plan for going forward. I won’t reiterate the details of what is being discussed and dissected in every media outlet available. To me, the report stands on four legs: 1) initiate a responsible reduction of the combat brigades in Iraq over a 15-month period, shifting the primary focus to a five-fold increase in embedded U.S. military advisors training Iraqi security forces; 2) immediately initiate a “new diplomatic initiative” in the region that includes direct talks with Iran and Syria; 3) make it clear to the Iraqis that if they don’t make “substantial progress” in reconciliation, security and governance, the U.S. will reduce all forms of support for their government; and 4) initiate serious Israeli – Palestinian peace negotiations.

Jim Baker, the Republican co-chair of the ISG, said that we have to abandon the current “stay the course” strategy. Lee Hamilton, the Democratic co-chair concurred and added, ominously, that “the ability of the United States to influence events is diminishing.” Others on the panel concurred that the time for making any effective change in Iraq may be running out.

By noon on Thursday, the White House had essentially distanced itself from the first three legs by saying that we will not diminish the strength of our commitment to Iraq until “victory” has been achieved, and we will not engage in diplomatic discussions with Iran and Syria until they make concessions that we know they won’t make. No word that I’ve heard yet on the fate of the fourth leg, which may prove to be the cornerstone of any meaningful effort to achieve long-term stabilization of the Middle East as a whole.

The proposal to drawn down combat troops in a reasoned manner over a responsible period of times makes sense to me and millions of other Americans. I don’t know if 15 months is the right answer, but some well-defined exit strategy that doesn’t rest on some ill-defined “victory” must be put in place. However, shifting a large number of combat troops into roles as advisors embedded with Iraqi forces raises a red flag for me: how do we protect the U.S. troops in those roles; won’t they be at significantly greater risk than the combat troops are now? That piece needs more discussion.

On the subject of regional diplomacy, Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton both reminded everyone that we engaged in direct negotiations with the Soviet Union and China for 40 years, in spite of them having been not only militant in their anti-American policies but also having been a direct military threat that included actual weapons of mass destruction. If we were able to speak directly with these Communist powers, I see no reason we can’t do the same with the Middle Eastern powers. Ironically, it was Republican presidents who eventually turned the keys that unlocked the doors with both of those sworn enemies – Nixon with the Chinese and Reagan with the Soviets.

Making it clear to the Iraqis that they have to make substantial progress in assuming full responsibility for reconciling, securing and governing their country or face a commensurate reduction in American political, military and economic support not only makes sense but is long overdue.

I don’t know if the 79 points offered by the ISG constitute the best go-forward plan. But I take it seriously enough to know that I would like my president to engage in meaningful discussions on each of those points for longer than 24 hours. I would like to see Bush and Secretaries Rice and Gates sit down with Baker, Hamilton and the four senior leaders in Congress for a few days, if not a couple of weeks, in a concerted effort to both ensure mutual understanding and to seek a common road ahead.

But, the shrieking voices from the far right will have none of that. They’re already attacking what they’ve now dubbed the Iraq Surrender Group. What a clever lot they are. The vapid nature of their commentary over the last two days reveals the lack of substance in their autonomic support of the current course of action in Iraq. All they can offer is an even more shrill version of the utterly worn out “we will not cut and run” mantra. Their plan amounts to about 79/100ths of a point.

The partisan uber-conservatives have marched out the “it’s just another partisan attack” attack. I love how they employ the “p” word in only one direction. It seems that the makeup of the ISG doesn’t please them. Never mind the fact that it was the brainchild of a Reb congressman from Virginia; it was established by a Reb-controlled congress; it was sanctioned by a Reb president; and five of its ten members, including the president’s new secretary of defense, are Rebs. They just aren’t the right kind of Rebs, meaning there’s no froth at the corners of their mouths.

At some point, a group of Reb leaders will need to visit the Oval Office to tell the current resident that he’s going to lead the Republican Party the rest of the way over the cliff. He and the likes of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney have led the party to the precipice already, but they seem oddly unaware of their teetering stance on the crumbling edge. It appears that they’ve forgotten what happened on November 7th, when America held a national plebiscite on the war in Iraq. Bush, Rove and Cheney got their butts kicked from coast to coast.

The president has often said that he pays no attention to the opinion polls. Electing to pay no attention to the people is a far riskier choice. When those people go to the election polls they’re capable of expressing an opinion that can’t be ignored – just ask the Rebs who are packing up their offices in Washington at this very minute. George W. Bush is perhaps the only Republican in the country who is capable of single-handedly turning over the keys of his office to the Republican’s version of Public Enemy No. 1, Ms. Hilary Clinton. The Reb leadership has to stand up and speak up.

But that only further begs the question as to whether there’s anyone in the Oval Office who has ears to hear. George Bush has declared in the last month that we are “absolutely winning the war”. His new secretary of defense has declared in the last week that we are not winning the war. Will the president listen to his new defense chief? I wouldn’t put any hard cash down on that bet.

For now, the president waits – waits for other assessments on Iraq that he has commissioned from the Pentagon, the National Security Council, and his staff. Undoubtedly, someone will eventually come up with a plan that says what the president wants to hear. In Washington, there’s always someone who will say what you want to hear.

It was a bitter reminder of the stakes on the table to hear that 11 U.S. troops were killed in Iraq on Wednesday, the day the ISG report came out. Those men didn’t get a chance to read that report. But, thanks to modern technology, more than 400,000 copies of that report were downloaded from just one website in the first five hours after it was released. Even though it’s available for free on the Internet, it’s already the No. 1 best seller in bookstores around the country.

The people are listening, and reading, and thinking, and making judgments on their own. They will make their opinions known in the opinion polls and in the blogs that now abound. Then, assuming they don’t take to the streets as they did the last time an American president ignored their coalescing views on a bad war, they will make their opinions even more clear in about 23 months.

Power to the people.