Iraq Roadsigns

There is now a consensus that the Iraq project is going badly and a fundamentally new strategy is necessary. I welcome the Baker-Hamilton report as an attempt at apolitical realism. It appears to mark a turning point in the conversation about Iraq from the entrenched polemics that have been so destructive to US and Iraqi interests. Hopefully moderates will have greater influence on policy, including McCain, Biden and the generals.

Political Cover
Yes, perhaps the report does provide "political cover" to the president, the Republican Party and others. So what. More important is whether it is an honest and potentially productive attempt at mitigating the disastrous consequences of our Iraq policy. This project has damaged our global credibility and military and it has been devastating for the chronically beleagered Iraqi people. Remember them? They are the real victims of the chaos, suffering increasing civilian casualties, ethnic cleansing and meltdown of economic infrastructure.

Key Findings
The Iraq Study Group included several experienced people who have a broad view of foreign policy issues (three former Secretaries of State). They are not to be dismissed as partisan or poor judges of political realities. On the other hand, not much in the way of military expertise was directly involved. Here are the key findings:

• The US cannot win. It would require a large increase in troop levels and a radical change in the Iraqi government's policy. Since neither is feasible, they are not worth talking about.
  
• Iraqis must be forced to take greater ownership using the threat of a phased troop withdrawal by 2008. The Iraqi army will be coached by embedding up to 20,000 advisory officers.
  
• Multi-lateral international cooperation should be fostered through a regional conference that would include Syria and Iran. These talks should allow the discussion of other regional issues such as the Israel/Palestine conflict, but not including the nuclear question viz Iran.
  

Mythology and Pathology
The Iraq conversation will hopefully become more constructive by eliminating several problematic talking points such as:

• Manichean regimes in the Middle East: Traditional logic holds that regimes in the Middle East are either good or bad. A more nuanced understanding is necessary which is hampered by the current existential quest for an enemy. In particular Iran is discussed reflexively.
• Liberals must not rush to endorse the report merely because it repudiates many of President Bush's policies. Frustration with the President is well deserved, but it must give way to the more important concerns. The "gotcha" reflex is only satisfying to those who are safely removed from the war zone.
  

Biden-Gelb Plan
This summer Senator Joe Biden and the former President of the Council on Foreign Relations Leslie Gelb proposed an important plan for Iraq. The Iraq Study Group report supports some of its points and is ambiguous about others:

1. Federalize Iraq
2. Share oil
3. Regional conference
   
4. Gradual troop withdrawal
5. Economic aid

Points 1 and 2, taken together represent a realist political solution that has unfortunately not been endorsed by the ISG.

McCain and other critics
Senator John McCain, like Biden, is always worth listening to. He is the leading advocate for augmenting the troops. The generals have mixed views on whether this is possible or worthwhile. A viable solution for Iraq must include realistic political and military plans. What is McCain's political proposal? Central to his logic is the question of whether things will spiral out of control and how bad it can get. I don't know the answer. Another point is that Iraq is now our responsibility; "you break it you bought it". We owe the Iraqis a bit of our blood and sweat now...if that will help and if they will accept it. But neither appears likely.

Some have dismissed the notion of talking with Syria and especially Iran as unrealistic and dangerous. I find this attitude to be wrongheaded and even dangerously dogmatic at worst. Senator Lieberman has been one of the more effective critics. What is ignored is the fact that Iran and the US share certain overlapping interests. For their own reasons, both Iran and the US want more democracy in the Middle East. Iran wants to empower the long-oppressed Shia populations and the US is finding out that maybe democracy is not a good thing after all.

What next?
So maybe political cover is exactly what's needed to get the conversation going. The outlines of the plan are written on the wall, and for once lets get it right and prepare for it rather than turning on each other.

• We cannot sustain this deployment forever and therefore must make the most of a bad situation.
• We need help. We cannot do it alone and at the end of the day, the consequences will reach everyone else as much as ourselves.
• Iran is no worse than our bosom buddy Saudi Arabia which is also quietly fueling the conflict. During the Cold War we talked to the Soviets all the time. Iranians spontaneously demonstrated against the September 11 attacks and are among the most pro-American in the region (in stark contrast to SA). Moreover we both want to see a stable Iraq led by moderate Shias (Muqtada al-Sadr is not liked by Iran).