|
The War Profiteers - War Crimes,
Kidnappings, Torture and Big Money |
|
December 6th,
2006 - Iraq Panel Calls Conditions ‘Grave and Deteriorating’ |
|
Iraq Panel Calls Conditions ‘Grave
and Deteriorating’ By William Branigin, Josh White and Robin Wright Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, December 6, 2006; 4:04 PM Conditions in Iraq are
"grave and deteriorating," with the prospect that a "slide
toward chaos" could topple the U.S.-backed government and trigger a
regional war unless the United States changes course and seeks a broader
diplomatic and political solution involving all of Iraq's neighbors,
according to a bipartisan panel that gave its recommendations to President
Bush and Congress today. In what amounts to the most
extensive independent assessment of the nearly four-year-old conflict that
has claimed the lives of more than 2,800 Americans and tens of thousands of
Iraqis, the Iraq Study Group bluntly warns that "current U.S. policy is
not working." Citing rising violence and the Iraqi government's failure
to advance national reconciliation, the panel paints a grim picture of a
nation that Bush has repeatedly vowed to transform into a beacon of freedom
and democracy in the Middle East. Despite a list of 79
recommendations meant to encourage regional diplomacy and lead to a reduction
of U.S. forces over the next year, the panel acknowledges that stability in
Iraq may be impossible to achieve any time soon. "We do not know if
[Iraq] can be turned around, but we think we have an obligation to try,"
former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), a co-chairman of the Iraq Study
Group, told a Capitol Hill news conference after the report was made public.
"The task ahead of us is daunting ... but it is not by any means
lost." The group's Republican
co-chairman, former secretary of state James A. Baker III, said the report
"doesn't bind anyone," but he suggested that its recommendations
carry extra weight because they have "complete bipartisan support." "We do not recommend a
'stay the course' solution," Baker said in summarizing the group's
findings at the news conference. "In our opinion, that approach is no
longer viable." But he said the group "also did not recommend a
precipitous withdrawal of troops because that might not only cause a
bloodbath, it would also invite a wider regional war." At present, Baker said,
Iraqis are "struggling in a world of fear" and "dare not
dream" of a better future. "They have been liberated from the
nightmare of a tyrannical order only to face the nightmare of brutal
violence. ... It is time to find a new way forward." Asked about the absence in
the report of any reference to "victory" in Iraq, a goal that Bush
has repeatedly emphasized, Baker said the panel opted to avoid "terms
that had been bandied about during the campaign season." He added,
"You won't find 'victory.' But you will find 'success.'" The group's recommendations
focus largely on building a broad international consensus for helping the
nation, pushing Iraq to meet a set of rather ambitious deadlines for internal
progress, and gradually reducing the U.S. troop presence there while boosting
support for Iraqi army control of the security situation. "No one can guarantee
that any course of action in Iraq at this point will stop sectarian warfare,
growing violence or a slide toward chaos," Baker and Hamilton warn in a
joint letter accompanying the report. "If current trends continue, the
potential consequences are severe." The letter adds, however,
"All options have not been exhausted. We believe it is still possible to
pursue different policies that can give Iraq an opportunity for a better
future, combat terrorism, stabilize a critical region of the world and
protect America's credibility, interests and values." The report spells out in
language both blunt and bleak the consequences of continued strife and
deterioration in Iraq: the collapse of the economy and fledgling government;
growing civil strife between Sunni and Shiite Muslims that could spread to neighboring
countries throughout the Middle East; new power and influence for Iran and
al-Qaeda, diminished respect worldwide for the United States and a growing
burden on the U.S. military that could hamper its ability to defeat militants
in Afghanistan. It raises the specter of a
humanitarian catastrophe that could spark a flood of refugees across the
region, as well as the possible return of Iraq to dictatorial rule. "Ethnic cleansing could
escalate," the report says. "The Iraqi people could be subjected to
another strongman who flexes the political and military muscle required to
impose order amid anarchy. Freedoms could be lost." The study group recommends
that the United States withdraw nearly all of its combat units from Iraq by
early 2008, sharply reducing the current troop level of more than 140,000
while leaving behind tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel to advise,
train and embed with Iraqi forces. It also recommends that Bush
threaten to reduce economic and military support for Iraq's government if it
fails to meet specific benchmarks intended to improve security in the
country. It suggests that the Bush administration open talks with Iran and
Syria about ways to end the violence in Iraq, proposes holding a regional
conference to bring together all of Iraq's neighbors and urges Bush to
aggressively tackle the Israeli-Palestinian dispute to reduce the broader
regional tensions fueling the Iraq conflict. The study group agreed
unanimously that its recommendations "need to be implemented in a
coordinated fashion" and "should not be separated or carried our in
isolation." Bush, who met with members
of the study group this morning, pledged to take its recommendations
"very seriously" while cautioning that he probably will not agree
with all of them. The report includes proposals that Bush has previously
rejected. "This report gives a
very tough assessment of the situation in Iraq," Bush said after
receiving a copy of it from the study group. "It is a report that brings
some really very interesting proposals. And we will take every proposal
seriously, and we will act in a timely fashion." Flanked by Baker and
Hamilton in the White House Cabinet room, Bush also urged members of Congress
to take the report seriously. "While they won't agree
with every proposal, and we probably won't agree with every proposal, it
nevertheless is an opportunity to come together and to work together on this
important issue," Bush said. The country is "tired of pure political
bickering," he said, suggesting that the report could help reduce it. "This report will give
us all an opportunity to find common ground for the good of the country - not
for the good of the Republican Party or the Democrat Party but for the good
of the country," he said. Bush did not take questions
after his comments. "There is no magic
formula to solve the problems of Iraq," the Baker-Hamilton letter says.
It urges political leaders to "build a bipartisan approach to bring a
responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly war," and it
calls on them to be "candid and forthright" with the American
people. "The situation in Iraq
is grave and deteriorating," says the report's executive summary.
"There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be
improved." "Our most important
recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in
Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in
Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces
out of Iraq responsibly," the summary says. Although all the options the
group considered "have flaws," and the recommendations it settled
on have "shortcomings," the report says, if they are implemented
and the Iraqi government moves ahead with national reconciliation,
"terrorism will be dealt a blow," stability enhanced and U.S.
credibility and interests protected. However, "If the
situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe,"
the summary says. "A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of
Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe. 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." As part of a recommended
"new diplomatic offensive," the report says, the United States
should try to engage Iran and Syria "constructively" by the end of
this year, using available "incentives" and
"disincentives." It says Iran, a Shiite Muslim theocracy, should
"stem the flow of arms and training" to Shiite militias in Iraq and
"use its influence" over Iraqi Shiite groups to encourage national
reconciliation. Syria, for its part, "should control its border with
Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents and terrorists in and out of
Iraq." The study group recommends
that Washington engage Syria, Jordan and the Palestinian government in a new
effort to negotiate Arab-Israeli peace. As a way to broker a regional
settlement, it argues that Israel should return the Golan Heights to Syria,
while Syria should stop supporting the radical Lebanese Shiite group
Hezbollah. The report says the primary
mission of U.S. forces in Iraq "should evolve to one of supporting the
Iraqi army." While the government in Baghdad "will need U.S.
assistance for some time to come," especially in assuring security,
"the United States must not make open-ended commitments to keep large
numbers of troops deployed in Iraq." It calls on the United
States to "adjust its role in Iraq to encourage the Iraqi people to take
control of their own destiny." The military should increase the number
of personnel, including combat troops, embedded in Iraqi army units while other
U.S. forces begin to move out of Iraq, it says. Such an increase, involving
the insertion of 10,000 to 15,000 U.S. troops within Iraqi units, would pull
troops out of U.S. combat brigades while keeping the overall American
presence approximately where it is now, at about 142,000 troops. The military currently has
3,000 to 4,000 troops embedded with Iraqi units. The additional embeds
recommended by the panel could be drawn from U.S. combat brigades already in
Iraq, according to William J. Perry, a member of the study group. By the first quarter of
2008, subject to unforeseen developments, "all combat brigades not
necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq," the report says,
with the remaining troops embedded with Iraqi forces, deployed in U.S. rapid-reaction
and special operations units or involved in training, equipping, advising,
force protection and search and rescue. Among the reasons for
rejecting an open-ended U.S. military commitment in Iraq is that such a
policy discourages the Iraqi government from moving forward with political
reconciliation, the study says. "While it is clear that
the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is moderating the violence, there is
little evidence that the long-term deployment of U.S. troops by itself has
led or will lead to fundamental improvements in the security situation,"
it says. The study group recommends
that the United States carry out the redeployment even if the Iraqi
government fails to implement planned changes, and it advocates increased
pressure on the Iraqis to achieve an expanded set of milestones. "If the Iraqi government
does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on
national reconciliation, security and governance, the United States should
reduce its political, military or economic support for the Iraqi
government," the report says. "Because none of the
operations conducted by U.S. and Iraqi military forces are fundamentally
changing the conditions encouraging the sectarian violence, U.S. forces seem
to be caught in a mission that has no foreseeable end," the study group
found. The report repeats the
assessments of U.S. military officials that the sources of violence in Iraq
have become intensely complex - with al-Qaeda responsible for only a small
portion of it, while sectarian death squads, criminal gangs and other
elements are responsible for the rest. Only about 1,300 foreign fighters are
in Iraq today, it says. By contrast, the Mahdi Army, a Shiite militia led by
hard-line anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, may number as many as 60,000.
The report notes that Sadr also controls the "Facilities Protection
Services" connected with the health, agriculture and transportation
ministries - providing security jobs to thousands whose loyalties are
questionable. The Iraqi police and
military have recruited substantial numbers, but they remain riven by their
own sectarian divisions. It remains doubtful, the study group found,
"whether they will carry out missions on behalf of national goals
instead of a sectarian agenda." The same sectarianism has
infected the country's elected officials, who agree on the problems Iraq
needs to address - how to share oil revenue, for example - but "view
issues through a sectarian prism" and are unable to act in the interests
of the entire nation, the study group concludes. It recommends that the
United States enforce fairly strict and optimistic deadlines for progress
there. Specifically, the Iraqis would be held to deadlines in late 2006 and
early 2007 for approving laws dealing with provincial elections, petroleum
profits, reintegrating former Baathists into the government and the
dissolution of militias. "It should be
unambiguous that continued U.S. political, military and economic support for
Iraq depends on the Iraqi government's demonstrating political will and
making substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national
reconciliation, security and governance," the report says. On the security front, the
group calls for Iraqi control of its army by April 2007, control of the
provinces by September 2007 and Iraqi security self-reliance, with U.S.
support, by December 2007. The study group acknowledges
positive steps taken by Iraqis, including democratic elections, the writing
of a constitution and the formation of a unity government. But the report is
pessimistic about the likelihood that progress will continue, unless the
United States finds a much more effective way to train and support the Iraqi
military and politicians. "Iraqis may become so
sobered by the prospect of an unfolding civil war and intervention by their
regional neighbors that they take the steps necessary to avert
catastrophe," the report says. "But at the moment, such a scenario
seems implausible because the Iraqi people and their leaders have been slow
to demonstrate the capacity or will to act." The panel rejects the idea
of partitioning Iraq into separate, autonomous regions, saying the country's
ethnic groups are geographically too diffuse, and the concept too politically
volatile, to be viable. The study group chides the
Bush administration for skirting the normal Congressional budget process by
funding the Iraq war with emergency supplemental budgets. Such emergency
requests do not receive the same scrutiny as the Defense Department's regular
budget, resulting in decreased congressional oversight, the report says. The 10-member panel, equally
divided between Republicans and Democrats, issued its report after nearly
nine months of work in which principals met with more than 170 people and
members of an expert working group conferred with hundreds of others. Besides
Baker and Hamilton, the group includes Republicans Lawrence S. Eagleburger, a
former secretary of state; Edwin Meese III, a former attorney general; Sandra
Day O'Connor, a retired Supreme Court justice; and Alan K. Simpson, a former
senator from Wyoming. Democrats on the panel are Vernon E. Jordan Jr., a
leading Washington power broker; Leon E. Panetta, a former congressman and
White House chief of staff under President Clinton; Charles S. Robb, a former
senator from Virginia; and Perry, who served as Clinton's defense secretary. Former CIA director Robert
M. Gates was a member of the study group until he was nominated by Bush to
become the new defense secretary. He was replaced on the panel by
Eagleburger. With Iraq mired in sectarian
violence and U.S. troops increasingly caught in the middle of it, while also
battling Iraqi insurgents and radical Islamic fighters from other Arab
countries, the study group's recommendations generated intense anticipation, offering
what many Americans hoped would be a way out of an increasingly unpopular
war. In the days leading up to
the release of the report, the White House let it be known that Bush was open
to several possibilities he had previously rejected. But the president
himself seemed dismissive of a key recommendation - leaked in advance of the
report - that called for the withdrawal of nearly all U.S. combat units from
Iraq by early 2008 while leaving behind troops to train, advise and support
the Iraqis. After conferring with Iraqi
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki last week in the Jordanian capital, Amman,
Bush told reporters, "This business about graceful exit just simply has
no realism to it whatsoever." The president's national
security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, said Sunday that Bush was exploring an
array of options, including a partial withdrawal of U.S. troops from violent
Iraqi cities and their redeployment near Iraq's borders with Iran and Syria.
Hadley said on the ABC News program "This Week" that Bush would
weigh recommendations not only from the Iraq Study Group, but from outgoing
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, members of Congress, military leaders
and Iraqi officials. Staff writers Howard
Schneider and Debbi Wilgoren contributed to this report. External link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/06/AR2006120600419.html |