Baker: Bush's policies have failed in Iraq

I said earlier that Bush was attempting to leave himself room to manoeuvre away from Baker's Iraq report, sending people out to state that Baker's opinion was simply one of many, although he rather condescendingly conceded that he would consider it.

And, although there was nothing in the report that was not flagged in advance, what was stunning about it was it's tone. It certainly feels like it will be impossible to ignore. It's the equivalent of a Sherman tank sitting in the middle of the Oval Office.

Baker has said that the policy of "staying the course" is "not viable" and warns that unless Bush changes course there will be a "chaos". He warns that even if his report is adopted, things may have already gone too far to be saved.

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. If current trends continue, the potential consequences are severe. Because of the role and responsibility of the United States in Iraq, and the commitments our government has made, the United States has special obligations.

Our country must address as best it can Iraq’s many problems.

In the latter highlighted section, Baker is repeating Colin Powell's statement before the war that if you break it, you own it and have to fix it.

Baker also points out how the situation is deteriorating:

The challenges in Iraq are complex. Violence is increasing in scope and lethality.

He also pointed out the sheer scale of Bush's folly and the size of his misjudgement:

If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe. 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.

He then demands that Syria and Iran should be negotiated with as part of a wider Middle East solution, then drops his bombshell:

The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability. There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab- Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment must include direct talks with, by, and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israel’s right to exist), and Syria.

Bush's record in the Middle East has been amongst the worst of any US President in history.

He said he wanted to "tip the scales back towards Israel" as opposed to the previous administration who had apparently - in Bush's insane planet - deserted the Israelis.

Of course, Clinton is a man who has already said he'd be prepared to fight and die for Israel, so tipping the scales "back towards Israel" actually meant ignoring international law and promising Sharon that he could keep "facts on the ground" by which Bush meant illegal Israeli settlements which international law had already declared illegal and which the UN had already stated, "the passage of time will not change their illegality".

I raise this point specifically because it seems to sum up the major faults of the Bush Presidency.

When informed that he is now the most powerful man in the world, Bush has behaved as if he's just been told that he is Mephisto and that his will is achieved by divine decree. He acts as if he can make the law up as he goes along. The illegal invasion of Iraq, the wiretapping of American citizens, the declaration that illegal Israeli settlements are "facts on he ground", the list goes on and on and on...

Bush thinks the law is whatever he decides it will be.

Baker today delivered a stunning slap in the face. He told Bush in no uncertain terms that he has failed.

From the look on Bush's face during the press conference, the message has been received although Bush launched into a diatribe about hoping the Democrats would not play partisan politics, as if the fault for the myriad of problems currently facing the US are because Bush listens and the Dems don't. As defences go, it was pathetic.

Baker also stated:

Iraq is a centerpiece of American foreign policy, influencing how the United States is viewed in the region and around the world. Because of the gravity of Iraq’s condition and the country’s vital importance, the United States is facing one of its most difficult and significant international challenges in decades.

In that paragraph, Baker puts Iraq up there with Vietnam as one of the US's most significant failures.

He also appeared to suggest that the Bush policy of avoiding withdrawing troops or setting timetables was over:

The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations. By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq.

The only thing that I would quibble with in Baker's report is the notion that the Iraqi government should be punished if they fail to curb the violence subject to some US timetable either by reducing US troops or US funding. The assumption there is that the Iraqis have some capability that they are not currently employing.

That's nonsense. And, if the Iraqis cannot quell the violence, how does withdrawing US funding and troops help them to do so? Unless what Baker is actually stating is that if the Iraqis can't do it then they must be left to their fate.

Other than that the report is bang on the money.

Engage with Iraq's neighbours and force the Israelis to enter into peace talks with those same countries.

The neo-con/Israeli experiment in Iraq has failed. Someone has finally called time on Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Perle/Wolfowitz's insane desire to remould the Middle East in Israel's favour. Just as the Israeli's failed in their bizarre Bush-backed campaign against Lebanon/Hizbullah, so Bush has now failed in Iraq.

Of course, Baker is too polite to call it a failure because the consequences of this neo-con misadventure are so serious that none of us can want to see Iraq collapse.

Even Baker admits that there is no easy way to avoid the total collapse of Iraq as a country.

We must all hope that this disaster can be averted, but we must never forget the neo-con/Israeli loons who brought us to this terrible impasse. Nor should they ever be forgiven.

Their mindset is represented on lunatic right wing blogs and on NRO and other sites all over the Internet. Baker's report should make them hang their heads in shame at what they have participated in.

They have risked the entire reputation of the US on a failed policy. But then, Bush's supporters have never represented the values that made America great. They are people who support torture and the dismissal of Habeas Corpus, so the whole world must rejoice that these lunatics have been defeated.

Just as we must hope that there is a way to avoid the dreadful consequences that might follow their crimes.

Click title for Baker Iraq Study Group Report.

tag: Bush, Iraq war, "Stay the course", James T Baker