Midterms, Baker Report to Shift U.S. Policy in Iraq to Engagment, Drawdown

With the midterm elections now over, we face a new direction in Iraq. Some believe that the new policies will be neither a rabbit-out-of-the-hat redirection nor simply cosmetic tinkering. Among options under consideration, these are the ones most likely judging from lawmakers, experts, and steps the White House is already taking:

• A new diplomatic push to engage all of Iraq's neighbors - including Iran and Syria.
• More insistence that the Iraq government make the decisions needed to help quell sectarian violence - including such things as combatant amnesty and the sharing of oil revenue.
• Reduction of U.S. troop numbers over the next year to a level sustainable among both the American and Iraqi publics.

Changes are unavoidable because of conditions in Iraq, unabated political pressure, and the report of the high-profile Iraq Study Group - co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic congressional leader Lee Hamilton which may have a greater impact on U.S. policy than the election results. That's partly because the Democrats are not united behind a single set of Iraq policy initiatives, but also because Baker commands respect in the White House.

Some advisers to the Iraq Study Group say that Baker has not ruled out the idea of abandoning the current government of PM Nouri al-Maliki if it does not begin to act on key concerns. The alternative could be a more technocratic and authoritarian government less beholden to the Shiite majority.

One reason a broad diplomatic push with Iraq's neighbors appears likely is that Baker, a well-known and respected figure in the Middle East, has already met with some regional leaders on the issue. At the same time, some experts say that the recommendation is likely to be for a "comprehensive" diplomatic effort - meaning it will call on the Bush administration to leave behind its reluctance to engage with influential but objectionable players in the conflict, including Iran and Syria.

On the particularly thorny question of U.S. troop levels, options are being floated both for an increase and a decrease. "The argument for increasing the number of U.S. troops comes down to the fact that the Iraqi security forces are not stepping up to the plate," says Michael O'Hanlon, a military-affairs specialist at the Brookings Institution. Many in the military now consider this the key to keeping Iraq back from the precipice of outright civil war. Still, many experts expect the contrary: a gradually draw down U.S. troops to the 40,000-60,000 level over the coming year.

"The reduction argument comes down to three points," says O'Hanlon. "Our Army and Marine Corps can't hold up under the strain; a shrinking U.S. presence would focus the minds of Iraqi political leaders that they don't have forever; and it reduces the perception of an occupying power that drives the insurgency."

Comments

[Garduneh Mehr]

"A new diplomatic push to engage all of Iraq's neighbors - including Iran and Syria."

For goodness' sake, Iran and Syria ARE the sources of the problems in Iraq. When are people going to learn that there is NO reconciling with evil. The civilized world and at its leadership U.S. has an implacable enemy in the form of Islamic Republic of Iran. The sooner this cancer is cauterized the better.

[Robert Schwartz]

"Baker, a well-known and respected figure in the Middle East, has already met with some regional leaders on the issue."

Baker is an old-time anti-Zionist, anti-Semite and Jew hater. He is a very bad man.