Blair and Bush should ignore Baker

Tony Blair and George W Bush are meeting in Washington again today - 24 hours after the publication of James Baker's bipartisan Iraq Study Group report.  The report is a combination of the bleedingly obvious, the improbable and the downright dangerous.  Its bottom line message, however, that troop withdrawals must happen soon chimes with the widespread chorus of defeatism that pervades discussion of Iraq. 

"No country in the region wants a chaotic Iraq," declares the report and goes on to recommend active engagement with Iran and Syria to end the chaos in Iraq.  Excuse me?  Aren't these the two despotic nations that - fearing the emergence of a democratically-elected US ally in the region - have actively destabilised Iraq over the last three years, calculating that America does not have the stomach to win a war of attrition?  Iraq is not on the verge of civil war - it is at the centre of a regional war with Iran currently on course for victory.  What price will Syria demand for 'solving' the Iraq crisis?  An end to investigations into its role in destabilising Lebanon and assassinating its leaders?  And what does Iran want?  Nothing much - just an end to interference with its nuclear ambitions.

There is only one way in which the United States can restore its reputation in the Middle East and the wider world and that is to defeat the insurgency and leave behind a stable, secure Iraq.  That's going to need a lot more troops as BritainAndAmerica recently argued.  Libya gave up its WMD at a time when it and a number of nations feared America and its determination to win the war on terror.  Few nations fear America now.  The world has seen America attempt to pacify Iraq with an inadequate number of troops.  It has seen strong media organisations stop weak politicians from correcting that deficiency.  It has watched American voters humble the President who put troops into Iraq.  It now sees James Baker produce a timetable for withdrawal that appears to have a great deal to do with the next US presidential elections and little to do with security of the Iraqi people.

Senator John McCain offers the strongest contrast to the current weakness of the US-UK political class.  Here are some key extracts from his statement of yesterday:

• On Israel and Palestine: "It is impossible to see how such a peace can be achieved so long as Hamas, a terrorist group that rejects a two-state solution and the very existence of Israel, stands at the helm of the Palestinian Authority. We must not push our Israeli ally to make concessions to groups that refuse to recognize its right to exist. In addition, the linkage the ISG report makes between this issue and the violence in Iraq seems tenuous at best. While I desire peace for Israel in its own right, it is difficult to see how an Arab-Israeli peace process will diminish Sunni-Shia violence in Baghdad or al Qaeda activity in Anbar Province."
• On Iran and Syria: "Our interests in Iraq diverge significantly from those of Damascus and Tehran, and this is unlikely to change under the current regimes. I do not object to reasonable efforts that might modify these countries' behavior in Iraq, but if the price of their cooperation is an easing of pressure on Tehran over its nuclear ambitions, or on Damascus over the Syrian role in Lebanon, then that price is too high."
• On troop numbers: "I applaud the ISG's endorsement of a surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad. Such a step is long overdue. But the coalition should not characterize such a redeployment as "short-term" or place a timetable on its presence. Our troops should be sent to Baghdad - or anywhere in Iraq - in order to complete a defined mission, not to serve until some predetermined date passes. By placing a limited timeframe on our military commitments, we would only induce Iraqis to side with militias that will stay indefinitely, rather than with the U.S. and Government of Iraq. Such a step would only complicate our considerable difficulties."

James Baker has betrayed the Iraqi people once before.  He and the first President Bush encouraged an uprising against Saddam after the Baghdad dictator had been expelled from Kuwait.  Baker did nothing to stop Saddam when he bloodily crushed that uprising.  His false timetable for withdrawal could easily produce what today's Wall Street Journal warns could be "a bloodbath that would make Rwanda look tame."

In this morning's Times Rosemary Righter attacks the so-called realists' belief that the different sides of Washington's political divide can be reconciled on Iraq:

"How do you split the difference between Democrats who want a rapid retreat from Iraq, and those Republicans who, like Senator John McCain, argue that the US must do what it takes to get Iraq to the point where it can govern and defend itself?"

The fact is, of course, you cannot.  What is needed from Blair and Bush today is an unambiguous signal that Britain and America will not leave Iraq until its people are safe.  That signal can only be sent by the deployment of at least another 50,000 troops.  Because of Blair and Brown's under-resourcing of Britain's armed forces, they will, of course, have to be American troops.  Yet again the safety of the world depends upon American leadership.  But is there a leader capable of persuading the American people that those extra troops are necessary - not just for the security of Iraq but for America's long-term interests?  That leader should begin that exercise of persuasion with Professor William J. Stuntz's analysis that Iraqi and US casualty numbers have fallen every time troop deployments have increased.

Comments

[Simon]

"There is only one way in which the United States can restore its reputation in the Middle East and the wider world and that is to defeat the insurgency and leave behind a stable, secure Iraq"

Yet all the evidence indicates that this is not an achievable goal. We are in an "I wouldn't start from here if I were you" situation. More troops may reduce the killing in Iraq, at least temporarily, but will not defeat the insurgency or create a stable, secure Iraq. Also, in practical terms more troops is a bad idea because of the harm & cost to us - any significant number would require conscription - for very limited & short-term gains.

I do agree with McCain re Israel and Syria-Iran though. Syria & Iran have very few shared interests in common with us, while pressuring Israel when the country is already feeling demoralised is a very bad idea. Israel needs support; there's no harm talking to Syria & Iran but they're not likely to change their strategies re Iraq unless the situation in Iraq changes radically, which will only occur when we leave. When that happens, Syria, which is relatively weak, will have a strong interest in seeing a stable, non-al-Qaeda Sunni state in western Iraq, Iran however may not even want a stable Shi'ite state in eastern Iraq.

[Richard Allen]

"There is only one way in which the United States can restore its reputation in the Middle East and the wider world and that is to defeat the insurgency and leave behind a stable, secure Iraq."

This comment is totally at odds with reality. The situation in Iraq has deteriated to the point where the US military could only defeat the insurgency by means of genocide.

[Winchester whisperer]

It's shocking that Blair can merrily embark on such ventures whilst being so mean with resources for the Army. Meanwhile HAC troops have been called in to fill "the gaps" with the MoD stumping up the salaries that they would have been earning in their City jobs. Hello?????

[Esbonio]

I was surprised the Editor did not give more prominence to Gen. Jackson's speech today.

[Simon]

Bill Lind on the 'more troops' meme:
http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_11_30_06.htm

Gary Brecher on "How to Win in Iraq" (basically concurring with Richard Allen, above):
http://www.exile.ru/2006-November-17/how_to_win_in_iraq.html

[Adam]

Even assuming that 50,000 more troops are all you need to defeat the insurgency (an almighty big assumption) - does the US have 50,000 troops going spare, the UK certainly doesn't.

[Stephen Bull]

Baker does not claim that he has the answer; only that all the alternatives are worse

[Rachel Joyce]

Baker's arguments just do not stack up. This weakness in the face of short term difficulties is exactly what Al Quaeda and Iran see as the way to fight the West.
Seeing this through and standing firm to principles is the only real choice, no matter how difficult it may be in the short term.

[TomTom]

Even assuming that 50,000 more troops are all you need to defeat the insurgency (an almighty big assumption) - does the US have 50,000 troops going spare,

pull them out of Korea

[stephan shakespeare]

"Baker does not claim that he has the answer; only that all the alternatives are worse"

I think that's wrong. The consequence of pulling out of Iraq before stability and security is achieved is a long-term diminution of American influence - no-one will believe that it will assert itself again in the near future. The second consequence of course is that Iran will become the dominating force in the region.

It is true, however, that the worst possible scenario is to stay with too few troops.

[Mike's America]

Thinking about our best ally on this 65th anniversary or our entering into war together:

http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2006/12/december-7th-1941-tragedy-that-could.html

Together we win. Divided we both lose.

[malcolm]

Watching the press conference yesterday was instructive.Both Blair and Bush looked like broken men. Neither seems to have the slightest idea what to do now. Bakers report seems to clutch at the thinnest of straws (the goodwill of Iran) but I suspect Bush will reject all its salient points if he can.He seems to be in a state of denial and I suspect he will soon have an almighty battle with Congress.

[Keir]

Wish we could ignore Bush and Blair...
Read that Blair's books of choice are the Old and New Testaments as well as the Koran. Quite how sources written by superstitious shepherds within the past 2-3 millenia are more worthy of study than what Baker, our Generals, and the weight of public opinion and broadsheet editorials have been saying for the past three years is beyond me. At least it gives him something to talk to Bush about around the barbeque when he visits.