CAABU Director article on Iraq Study Group

International Affairs Forum 13 December 2006 Chris Doyle, Director, CAABU

Perhaps the greatest failing of the report is that it should have been commissioned in 2003 not 2006. They were tasked with an insurmountable challenge of proposing solutions to what they and many others see as a no-win scenario. The Iraq Study Group report is schizophrenic. The analysis is spot on, a devastating critique of US foreign policy that has shaken the White House and its allies to its core. It would be hard to imagine a more biting indictment coming from a group headed by James Baker, a man with such a long-standing friendship with the Bush family. The solutions are however, a melange of contradictions and impossibilities offering an a la carte menu that whose recommendations George Bush can either ignore or adopt. Few if any analysts seriously entertain the idea that these would have a better chance of working that the current batch of failed policies. The trouble with Iraq is that everyone is enjoying the opportunity to chastise the current administration, even arch neo-cons such as Richard Perle. Being an Iraq policy critic is an easy cop out. Barring a few ideological crackpots, very few deny that Iraq has been a catastrophic disaster. The evidence of staggering levels of fatalities and injuries from the colossal daily violence in Iraq along with estimated $2 trillion costs are tough to argue against. There is a sinking ship and there is a race to jump off as quickly as possible. Those jumping ship do so whilst screaming that Iraqis and the Iraqi government are to blame. The report wants the Iraq government to be accountable setting it targets that it should meet. These are unlikely to be realisable. If the United States is to cut and run, it should have the decency to hold up its hand and admit its failures. What message will it send out if the US ditches its few remaining allies in the country, Iraqi government and the Kurds? The question is can George Bush, and indeed Tony Blair, make a convincing u-turn even if they want to? Having assiduously pushed for the invasion of Iraq, the use of force and the neo-con agenda, can they then execute a diplomatic campaign engaging the very states that they have been most bitterly critical of? Iran and Syria may have an interest in seeing a more stable Iraq but they have other interests and ambitions which they wish the US to accept before helping them out of the cavernous hole it has dug for itself. Blair has pushed for one portion of the study group’s recommendations, namely to hold a comprehensive peace conference to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict but he knows that unless Bush departs from his steadfast pro-Israeli line, there will be none of the pressure on Tel Aviv necessary to bring this about. The glaring weaknesses in the report will provide George Bush with a safety line. Before announcing anything, he can wait for other reviews to be presented, not least from the military who are unlikely to present a cut and run option. But should Bush reject many of the solutions from the Study Group, he risks losing one of its key benefits. Being a bipartisan effort, it could have tied in key elements of the Democrat party as well as the increasingly critical pragmatic wing of the Republican establishment. As few experts have been able to articulate a coherent elegant solution for Iraq, the attractions of opting for an approach that gets a buy in from the largest number of your domestic critics must be huge.