WASHINGTON
(By Jon Garrido, Hispanic News) December 6, 2006 — Today a bipartisan commission
warned “the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating,” and handed President
Bush both a rebuke of his current strategy and a detailed blueprint for a
fundamentally different approach, including the pullback of all American combat
brigades over the next 15 months.The commission headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton, a retired Democratic congressman from Indiana, argued it is time to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly.
In a surprise conflict in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.” Reyes said, "Such ideas proposed by the Baker Hamilton report are not likely to substantially change my own views on the subject. This is my position.”
Speaker designate Nancy Pelosi chose Reyes as the new head of the intelligence panel primarily because Pelosi wanted somebody who would be more aggressive in standing up to the Bush policy on the war in Iraq.
Reyes was an early opponent of the Iraq war and voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade that country. That dovish record was the basis for the Reyes appointment.
Reyes’s surprised comments on increasing troop levels in Iraq were immediately blasted by one Iraq war critic who expressed concerns that they would give new respectability to an idea that has lost considerable support in official Washington as the violence in Iraq has escalated. “I think Reyes needs a course in Insurgency 101,” said Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst who has been active in an anti-war group called the Steering Group for Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. “Have they learned nothing from Vietnam? If he pushes this and gets some support and with McCain in the Senate, it could become more respectable. I think Reyes has got a lot to learn.”
One source familiar with aspects of the Baker-Hamilton panel’s deliberations said the idea of an increase of U.S. troop strength of 20,000 to 30,000 had been pushed by some U.S. military commanders for some time. However, Democratic members of the commission were unwilling to go along with any proposal that would indicate an expansion of the U.S. mission in that country, according to the source, who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive matters.
“We do not recommend a stay-the-course solution,” Mr. Baker said pointedly at a news conference accompanying the report’s release. “In our opinion, that is no longer viable.”
“The current approach is not working, and the ability of the United States to influence events is diminishing,” Mr. Hamilton said at the news conference on Capitol Hill. “Our ship of state has hit rough waters. It must now chart a new way forward.”
What played out today, from the White House to Capitol Hill, was a remarkable condemnation of American policy drift in the biggest and most divisive military conflict to involve American forces since Vietnam. It was all the more unusual because the group itself managed to come up with unanimous recommendations endorsed by all five Democrats and five Republicans on the 10-member panel.
The bipartisan commission clearly attempted to box the president in, presenting its recommendations as a comprehensive strategy that would only work if implemented in full.
That appeared to be a warning to Mr. Bush, who in recent days has said he would consider the independent panel’s findings alongside studies by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Council, and has suggested he would pick the best elements of each of them.
The Baker Hamilton findings left Washington awash in speculation over whether Mr. Bush, who thanked the members for their work and, in a private meeting, did nothing to push back against their findings, would embark on a huge reversal in policy. To do so would represent an admission three and a half years of strategy had failed and Mr. Bush’s repeated assurances to the American people “absolutely, we’re winning” were based more on half truths and thus meant to deceive Americans.
Now added to dilution of the goal to box Mr. Bush into implementing the Baker Hamilton recommendations comes Mr. Reyes to align himself as a leading Democrat with the "stay the course" policy of Mr. Bush.
A significant blunder provided by the appointment of a Congressional House Democrat as the chair of the House Intelligence Committee. For this strategic blunder, Mr. Reyes' appointment should be rescinded and given to someone who wants to bring our soldiers home tomorrow. To have a Democrat align with the "stay the course" is an affront to the outcome of the November 7 elections providing for leadership change of the United States Congress.
Democrats largely embraced the findings of the Baker Hamilton report. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said the group has done “a tremendous and historic service” by declaring “there must be a change in Iraq, and there is no time to lose.”
But other Democrats were clearly disappointed that the commission did not embrace calls for a rapid withdrawal, as Rep. John H. Murtha recommended a year ago, or a partition of the country, as Senator Joseph R. Biden, the Delaware Democrat soon to head the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has said is necessary.
The commission’s report included blistering critiques of current policy. It said intelligence agencies had far too few people working on the causes of insurgency. More importantly with all the emphasis on training more than 200,000 Iraqi police and military being an ongoing priority for nearly four years, the primary question has never been answered — Who trained the insurgents? Why are untrained insurgents wining the war? Why are the Iraqi police and military un-trainable?
The report painted a particularly dire picture of prospects in Iraq if matters continue to deteriorate.
“A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq’s government and a humanitarian catastrophe,” the report said in its executive summary. “Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized.”
The Iraq War is a quagmire brought about by the arrogance and stupidity of one uncouth man. Beginning with deceiving the Nation and continuing with half truths, the President is responsible for the demise of America from ocean to ocean and to the loss of respect for the United States as the global leader. Pain and suffering felt in every household in America in one form or another is all attributed to one man — the Republican president.
Reporting from NYTimes and Newsweek contributed to this article.
