OPINION & EDITORIAL
Baker-Hamilton report offers ideas, but only Bush can act
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Mike Skelly:
- Students' behavior during games suitable (February 1, 2006)
- Out-of-state students help system's status (October 24, 2006)
- Burger Boat Co. contract latest sign of troubled system (February 8, 2006)
- Bush opposition needs backbone (October 31, 2006)
- Cartoon uproar bad for Islam, West (February 16, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Fresh chance for Bush (December 8, 2006)
- Madison police only make things worse (May 3, 2007)
- Bush's pre-war intelligence reflects gossip magazines (April 4, 2005)
- Moment of truth for United Nations (February 5, 2003)
- Referendum fair gauge of opinion (March 30, 2006)
by Mike Skelly
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
With the recent publication of the Baker-Hamilton commission's report about the situation in Iraq, a new spotlight has been placed upon the United States' performance in post-war Iraq. The report, which was compiled by former Secretary of State James Baker and former U.S. Representative Lee Hamilton, had been rumored to be critical of the war and contain some potentially inflammatory measures intended to quell the situation.
Yet since its release, it seems as if a wider range of people are open to exploring its suggestions, an outcome that bodes well for proponents of change. Furthermore, since the report's release, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten has reached out to critics of Iraq strategy in order to convene a broader base of opinions for President Bush to consider.
The suggestions within the report encompass a broad range of ideas that differ significantly from current policy. One suggestion is to threaten a reduction in the amount of economic and military aid sent to the Iraqi government if certain progress benchmarks are not met. Another is to reach out to neighboring countries, Iran and Syria, in a collaborative effort to stabilize the violence. The majority of the suggestions like these contain elements that suggest a general decline of American involvement in the coming years, a change that many Americans appear to be happy to accept.
According to a recent poll conducted by Newsweek, Americans are generally more supportive of the recommendations by a 2-to-1 margin. While this is potentially good news for building a consensus regarding new approaches for strategy in Iraq, the most important voice in the matter has yet to fully weigh in on the situation. President Bush still has not given a complete opinion about the Iraq Study Group's findings, mentioning only that he found the report "constructive."
Whether or not the new suggestions are implemented relies heavily on President Bush's reaction to them and his perception of the political ramifications for enacting them. Yet, for a commander in chief who has been urging the United States to stay the course for the past several years in a conflict that has done little but deteriorate, the commission marks an important opportunity for a turning point, not just in Iraq, but in Washington as well.
The mantra from Washington has too often devolved into a trite "stay the course" mentality, with clever catchphrases used to deflect legitimate questions regarding policy and strategy in Iraq. President Bush has consistently stressed that he is prepared to commit the resources necessary to achieve victory. Yet, the fundamental element that has been lacking in Bush's resolve is a real definition of "victory." Furthermore, with the situation in Iraq becoming more destabilized and complicated by the month, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a working definition for what victory could even mean.
Is victory at this point the eradication of insurgent elements from Iraq? Is it leaving the country with a stable infrastructure and democratic government that is both flexible and robust enough to respond to the ever-changing situation? Is it some combination of the two or something completely different? These are serious questions that have not received the attention or the priority that they should merit.
At this juncture, it is essential for the President to change his "stay the course" mentality and begin to honestly explore the range of ideas being presented to him. For there to be even the remotest possibility of a positive outcome in Iraq, it is imperative that the administration consider external viewpoints, such as the Iraq Study Group, and that they finally define what the mission in Iraq truly is.
Mike Skelly (meskelly@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in finance and political science.
Anonymous (December 12, 2006 @ 7:37am):
The difference between this war and the first gulf war is that we had an actual coalition the first time. Bush and Co. were SO pompous thinking they could "go it alone" with 150,000 troops. We had over 400,000 troops for the first gulf war and we didn't even INVADE Iraq.
Dear President Bush, strap on your kneepads and start sucking up to the rest of the world. Maybe you can find the troops you need for "victory" by building a real coalition. Until then, you're the worst president ever (way worse than Buchanan).
Anonymous (December 12, 2006 @ 7:39am):
The problem in Iraq is that we can't withdraw U.S. troops because the Iraqi military is not adequately trained to maintain security on its own? Well then, the ISG tells us, all we need to do is to train the Iraqi military so that they can maintain security on their own, and then we can withdraw our troops.
The problem in Iraq is that the Iraqi government won't approve a crackdown to dismantle the Shiite militias? Well then, all we have to do is to convince the Iraqi government to approve a crackdown to dismantle the Shiite militias.
The problem in Iraq is that Iran and Syria are arming, funding, and encouraging Sunni and Shiite insurgents? Well then, all we have to do is to convince Syria and Iran to stop supporting these insurgents.
The problem in the region is that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict inflames anti-American sentiment? Well then, all we have to do is to convene a conference to negotiate peace in the Middle East.
See how simple that was? It's amazing that no one ever thought of these ideas before the Iraq Study Group came along. But no, don't thank them. It's all in a day's work for Captain Obvious.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009374
Anonymous (December 12, 2006 @ 11:15am):
Captain Obvious, peace in the Middle East is the answer to achieving peace in Iraq, which happens to be in the Middle East? I wonder if anyone has ever tried to work toward Middle East peace before? I'll rename you, Captain Doesn't Think It Through.
Anonymous (December 12, 2006 @ 12:42pm):
Quick, somebody with extra time who gives a damn, find out what the Middle East peace/war time ratio has been for the last 1000 years. Has there ever really been any peace?
