QUOTE
James Baker, the Iraq Study Group, and the Riddle Inside a Mystery Wrapped in an Enigma
James Baker, after saying that his Iraq Study Group will not report until after the election so as not to "interfere in politics," interferes in politics by leaking his conclusions: that he will convince George W. Bush to abandon "stay the course," for it is time for the U.S. to leave Iraq.
Is this a head fake to try to hold reality-based Republicans in line until after the election, given that Bush has no desire to change course at all?
Is this a signal that Bush is looking for cover to justify a withdrawal from Iraq, but will not take the initiative himself or announce withdrawal until after the election--because of what he fears a change of course now would do to Republican office holders? The bill for each month Bush delays doing what he should have done two years ago is 100 American soldiers dead, 500 American soldiers maimed, and perhaps 4,000 Iraqis dead.
Or is this a last-ditch attempt by Bush 41 partisans--reality-based Republicans--to use the stick of the election to make one more pathetic and vain attempt to unseat Cheney and company and get the stubborn and incompetent George W. Bush to recognize reality?
I think this is the first, and so does Helena Cobban. Pat Lang thinks it is the third. Steven Weisman says he thinks it is the second--but he's in the tank, and is saying what Baker wants him to say.
(Blogger goes on to post snippets of their opinions)
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/10/james_baker_the.html
James Baker, after saying that his Iraq Study Group will not report until after the election so as not to "interfere in politics," interferes in politics by leaking his conclusions: that he will convince George W. Bush to abandon "stay the course," for it is time for the U.S. to leave Iraq.
Is this a head fake to try to hold reality-based Republicans in line until after the election, given that Bush has no desire to change course at all?
Is this a signal that Bush is looking for cover to justify a withdrawal from Iraq, but will not take the initiative himself or announce withdrawal until after the election--because of what he fears a change of course now would do to Republican office holders? The bill for each month Bush delays doing what he should have done two years ago is 100 American soldiers dead, 500 American soldiers maimed, and perhaps 4,000 Iraqis dead.
Or is this a last-ditch attempt by Bush 41 partisans--reality-based Republicans--to use the stick of the election to make one more pathetic and vain attempt to unseat Cheney and company and get the stubborn and incompetent George W. Bush to recognize reality?
I think this is the first, and so does Helena Cobban. Pat Lang thinks it is the third. Steven Weisman says he thinks it is the second--but he's in the tank, and is saying what Baker wants him to say.
(Blogger goes on to post snippets of their opinions)
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/10/james_baker_the.html
And an editorial from a Middle East paper:
QUOTE
Out with it now!
24 October 2006
PROMINENT Senate Democrats are right in urging the White House not to wait till after the US congressional elections to give the Iraqi government a timetable to assume a larger role in securing the country. The Bush administration is understandably apprehensive that a strategy shift now might further upset the dipping public opinion.
But it bears noting that the month preceding the elections has already been one of the worst since the war began. Till Sunday, the US forces’ October casualty count had reached 83 with on-ground commanders admitting that the two-month plan to contain the insurgency had failed to achieve its aim. Bush’s approval ratings are below 40 per cent and with the violence constantly rising, it is difficult to see the Republicans maintaining their majority in Congress. It seems they are unable to decide whether announcing policy change now – which would amount to a marked departure from the stay-the-course stance adopted so far — would bolster the Democrats’ case in the public eye.
The word in Washington is that the administration might use the James Baker group’s findings to prompt an exit strategy, which is why it has set for the report to be issued after the November 7 elections. Seen in light of ground realities, there are two compelling arguments for making those findings, and subsequent strategy, public before the elections. First, the war has already thoroughly devastated Iraq.
To delay measures aimed at restoring some sort of order for the sake of securing Congress majority should only serve to further alienate the already discontented public from the powers that be. Second, it does not reflect too well on the world’s most powerful democracy, which went to war to supposedly spread the democratic values it cherishes, to keep its own people in the dark ahead of the crucial vote. Especially since the election result will have profound implications on American and therefore international politics.
Since the three years of occupation have only seen the security situation deteriorate in Iraq, it is important to seriously reassess things. It is more than apparent that the occupying forces are not able to handle the insurgency. Some are arguing that the dreaded civil war has already begun, something not easy to deny when presented with daily bombing and casualty statistics. It seems the only path to an ultimate solution is for the US to signal a phased withdrawal. That would augur well for the Iraqi government too. With the American departure imminent, the Iraqis would know that it would be up to them to sort out their differences, with minimised external influence. It’s time for the Bush administration to take the bull by the horns, and for once give politically correct rhetoric a back sheet to plain facts, and accept what ground realities imply.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle...torial&col=
24 October 2006
PROMINENT Senate Democrats are right in urging the White House not to wait till after the US congressional elections to give the Iraqi government a timetable to assume a larger role in securing the country. The Bush administration is understandably apprehensive that a strategy shift now might further upset the dipping public opinion.
But it bears noting that the month preceding the elections has already been one of the worst since the war began. Till Sunday, the US forces’ October casualty count had reached 83 with on-ground commanders admitting that the two-month plan to contain the insurgency had failed to achieve its aim. Bush’s approval ratings are below 40 per cent and with the violence constantly rising, it is difficult to see the Republicans maintaining their majority in Congress. It seems they are unable to decide whether announcing policy change now – which would amount to a marked departure from the stay-the-course stance adopted so far — would bolster the Democrats’ case in the public eye.
The word in Washington is that the administration might use the James Baker group’s findings to prompt an exit strategy, which is why it has set for the report to be issued after the November 7 elections. Seen in light of ground realities, there are two compelling arguments for making those findings, and subsequent strategy, public before the elections. First, the war has already thoroughly devastated Iraq.
To delay measures aimed at restoring some sort of order for the sake of securing Congress majority should only serve to further alienate the already discontented public from the powers that be. Second, it does not reflect too well on the world’s most powerful democracy, which went to war to supposedly spread the democratic values it cherishes, to keep its own people in the dark ahead of the crucial vote. Especially since the election result will have profound implications on American and therefore international politics.
Since the three years of occupation have only seen the security situation deteriorate in Iraq, it is important to seriously reassess things. It is more than apparent that the occupying forces are not able to handle the insurgency. Some are arguing that the dreaded civil war has already begun, something not easy to deny when presented with daily bombing and casualty statistics. It seems the only path to an ultimate solution is for the US to signal a phased withdrawal. That would augur well for the Iraqi government too. With the American departure imminent, the Iraqis would know that it would be up to them to sort out their differences, with minimised external influence. It’s time for the Bush administration to take the bull by the horns, and for once give politically correct rhetoric a back sheet to plain facts, and accept what ground realities imply.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle...torial&col=
So, what do you think? Is a policy change in the offing? Or are the hints and rumors for the election? Or is it a warning shot preceding a palace rebellion?
Or something else? What do you think is going on?
