Source:
UPIWASHINGTON, June 12 (UPI) -- The authors of the Baker-Hamilton report on Iraq believe the White House is moving toward embracing the report.
It was issued last fall, and at the time the White House rejected key parts of it -- namely, that the primary mission in Iraq should be training Iraqis; that support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki should be conditioned on his performance, and that the White House should go on a diplomatic offensive to win support from the region and world for a stable Iraq, starting with Iran and Syria.
"It looks more and more like the administration is moving toward embracing all of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group report," said former Secretary of State James Baker, in a panel discussion at the National Press Club Monday. "In fact, the president himself said as much ... when the press asked him -- said, 'Mr. President, if the surge doesn't work, do you have a plan B?' And he said, 'No.' He said, 'That would be a plan B-H, Baker-Hamilton.'"
"I think they're coming our way," agreed Democratic former Rep. Lee Hamilton. "We have a unique set of circumstances, a unique country, unique problems, unique challenges in Iraq, and I think we have to deal with this most difficult public policy problem, how to responsibly remove ourselves over a period of time from Iraq."
Read more:
http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Briefing/2007/06/12/bakerhamilton_white_house_coming_our_way/3943/
Newsweek: WH official claims Bush has no intention of going back to Baker-Hamilton recommendations
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19099768/site/newsweek /
Iraq After 2008
What follows the surge? Will it be ‘Plan B,’ ‘Plan B-H’ (Baker-Hamilton), or something like South Korea? Bush seems as hazy on this as he was on the initial occupation plan. All that’s certain, says a White House official, is that a ‘fairly robust’ U.S. force will long be in Iraq.
<snip>
In fact Bush has no intention of going back to Baker-Hamilton, says a senior White House official, who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to speak on the record. Sure, he’s paying a lot more lip service to its recommendations, partly in an effort to gain new bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill after the White House’s successful effort to thwart a Democrat-led withdrawal plan. But one of the central recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report called for a dramatic consolidation of the U.S. presence onto a handful of large bases like Balad. There, U.S. air units and special ops would mainly focus on killing Al Qaeda and leave the Iraqis more or less to their own devices. A long-term presence at Balad is still part of the plan—it always was—but the White House official told NEWSWEEK this week that the Baker-Hamilton panel misunderstood the mission. “What Baker-Hamilton didn’t get right is the military feasibility of doing anti-Al Qaeda missions based primarily on special forces operations,” he told me. “That isn’t feasible because Al Qaeda is so entrenched in the population.” When the National Intelligence Estimate “gamed this out,” he said, it concluded that sectarian violence was now so out of control that to allow Shiite reprisals to occur while the Americans remained hunkered down on their bases would only fuel support among the Sunnis for Al Qaeda, which would grow even more entrenched. Hence the surge’s effort to rein in Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army and other chief culprits.
...
But to do that effectively, U.S. combat brigades needed to be shifted out of Iraq so their officer corps could be turned into trainers. And under the surge, that’s not happening either. To do so, it would mean “a fairly significant change to the (U.S.) force laydown in Iraq,” Maj Gen. Carter Ham, the commandant at Fort Riley, the U.S. Army’s adviser-training center, told me. The big trade-off of the surge that few people are taking note of—what it really has cost us—is that it is taking precious time away from the program to bring the Iraqi Army to readiness. The surge is therefore ensuring that U.S. troops will have to remain longer on the front lines of an intractable sectarian war.
The upshot is there really is no Plan B, or Plan B-H, or indeed anything coherent. The goal is Baker-Hamilton’s “end-state,” but without the training up of Iraqis that would allow the recommended pullout to happen by March 2008. It’s the South Korean occupation without the truce, or a status-of-forces pact. It’s just Iraq, in other words— a quagmire that is as resistant to solutions as ever. 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
