Bipartisan Panel Rules Out Victory In Iraq, Proposes "Cut and Run" Option

Soccernova78 · Oct 12, 2006

Baker Panel To Issue Sobering Assessment According To A Report

A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America, according to draft policy options shared with The New York Sun by commission officials.

Currently, the 10-member commission — headed by a secretary of state for President George H.W. Bush, James Baker — is considering two option papers, "Stability First" and "Redeploy and Contain," both of which rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable democracy in the near term.

More telling, however, is the ruling out of two options last month. One advocated minor fixes to the current war plan but kept intact the long-term vision of democracy in Iraq with regular elections. The second proposed that coalition forces focus their attacks only on Al Qaeda and not the wider insurgency.

Instead, the commission is headed toward presenting President Bush with two clear policy choices that contradict his rhetoric of establishing democracy in Iraq. The more palatable of the two choices for the White House, "Stability First," argues that the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad while the American Embassy should work toward political accommodation with insurgents. The goal of nurturing a democracy in Iraq is dropped.

The option papers, which sources inside the commission have stressed are still being amended and revised as the panel wraps up its work, give a clearer picture of what Mr. Baker meant in recent interviews when he called for a course adjustment.

They also shed light on what is at stake in the coming 2 1/2 months for the Iraqi government. The "Redeploy and Contain" option calls for the phased withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq, though the working groups have yet to say when and where those troops will go. The document, read over the telephone to the Sun, says America should "make clear to allies and others that U.S. redeployment does not reduce determination to attack terrorists wherever they are." It also says America's top priority should be minimizing American casualties in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Revolt · Oct 12, 2006

Because of the politically explosive topic of the Baker commission, the panel has agreed not to release its findings until after the November 7 elections. The commission, formally known as the Iraq Study Group, was created by Congress in legislation sponsored by Rep. Frank Wolf, a Republican of Virginia and close confidant of Mr. Bush's. Mr. Baker has said he will likely present the panel's findings in December.
Click to expand...

********ers. How many lives will be lost because of such cowardice?

At least the president will be presented with two options other than 'Stay the Course.' Neither involves victory - which ain't gonna happen anyway.

And the cowards do at least present some common sense items:

Both option papers would compel America to open dialogue with Syria and Iran, two rogue states that Iraqi leaders and American military commanders say are providing arms and funds to Iraq's insurgents. "Stabilizing Iraq will be impossible without greater cooperation from Iran and Syria," the "Stability First" paper says.
Click to expand...

Well, duh. Of course, this will mean an official end to the merry band of idealistic neocons who want to remake the world in their warped image - at the end of a gun barrel. So, Bill Kristol. here's where you get pushed under the bus.

Maybe, there's some six-party talks Condi could mediate.

Mel Brennan · Oct 12, 2006

The USA in 2006; where drafts represent the truth, and the published, final work represent the poilitics.

Matt in the Hat · Oct 12, 2006

Mel Brennan said:

The USA in 2006; where drafts represent the truth, and the published, final work represent the poilitics.
Click to expand...

Remind me of the last time this wasn't the case.

Revolt · Oct 12, 2006

Its just as well the Baker Coward Commission report comes out soon because democracy in Iraq is all but dead. The Shiites pushed through a poisen pill bill on devolving Iraq into a confederacy.

Sunni politicians accused Shiite lawmakers Thursday of using dirty tricks to push through a new law on federalism, a landmark measure that will transform Iraq by allowing Shiites to form a self-rule mini-state in the south.
The dispute reflects the controversy over federalism, which leaders of Iraq's majority Shiites support but which Sunnis deeply oppose, fearing it will tear the country to pieces and fuel sectarian violence.
The passage of the bill has deepened feelings among some Sunni Arabs that their voices are being ignored in the political process, where Shiite parties dominate the government and parliament.
The vote on the law Wednesday was marred by a boycott by the Sunni bloc of lawmakers, along with several Shiite parties, who also reject some specifics of the bill.
The boycott delayed the vote for several hours as supporters tried to convince lawmakers to attend and scrambled to achieve a quorum — 138 of the 275 legislators. The session was closed to the public, and after repeated counts it was announced that 140 lawmakers attended. The measure was passed unanimously by a show of hands, with no count of the vote.
One of the main Sunni parties, however, accused the Shiites of fudging the numbers, saying quorum had not been reached.
"The session was confused and turbulent. They claimed they met the quorum but they did not. There were no more than 126 lawmakers," said Mohammed al-Daimi of the National Dialogue Council.
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061012/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_federalism_1&printer=1;_ylt=Ajo4RW08yXS5qRG4hGrL06cUewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Chris M. · Oct 12, 2006

The more palatable of the two choices for the White House, "Stability First," argues that the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad

Good friggin God. Shouldn't the stabilization of the capital have been the focus from the day we hit the ground.

Knave · Oct 12, 2006

Why do bipartisan panels hate America!?!

Mel Brennan · Oct 12, 2006

Matt in the Hat said:

Remind me of the last time this wasn't the case.
Click to expand...

In the US? I'd have to look. Point is, when a civilization has the truth, but prefers to tell official lies to itself, it's in danger.

Smurfquake · Oct 12, 2006

Chris M said:

Good friggin God. Shouldn't the stabilization of the capital have been the focus from the day we hit the ground.
Click to expand...

They were too busy making plans to protect the troops from injuries received by thrown flowers.