Iraq Panel to Urge Changes; Bush Briefed

It's quite astonishing to realise that the US involvement in Iraq has now lasted longer than their involvement in World War Two, highlighting the idiocy of Rumsfeldian predictions that it would all be over in a matter of weeks or months. Almost every prediction that the neo-cons made, from the length of the war to how it would fund itself, has proven to be horrendously wrong.

And yet, on the day that James Baker is finally to submit his long awaited Iraq Study Group report, we are told that Bush is to consider it only one of many recommendations.

"We're going to give it a careful review,'' White House press secretary Tony Snow said Tuesday. "As we have mentioned, there are other ongoing studies within the administration.''

A senior administration official said "there will be some disagreements but a lot we can work with,'' but offered no detail.

Bush has made it clear that he is opposed to any timetables for withdrawal, with a scaled withdrawal appearing to be one of Baker's recommendations.

The bipartisan commission is expected to advise gradually phasing the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq from combat to training and supporting Iraqi units, with a goal of pulling back American combat troops by early 2008. It is also expected to urge a more energetic effort to involve Iraq's neighbors in ending violence there, including Iran and Syria, which the U.S. considers pariah states.

However, Bush must feel under some pressure as his new Secretary of Defence has just said that he does not think the US is winning the Iraq war despite Bush's comment on Oct. 25 when he stated, "Absolutely, we're winning.''

This level of blind optimism is what Bush uses as a substitute for an actual plan. It has proven, so far, to be disastrous and there is no indication that Bush intends to dramatically change course.

In a brief phone interview, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said the president "made it clear he intends to be successful in Iraq and he's not going to be in the business of effecting some scheduled withdrawal.''

Reading "State of Denial" I was struck by how often Bush would end meetings and discussions on Iraq by promising Victory without ever specifying how this Victory would be achieved. It's almost as if it something that can be achieved by willpower alone. As if the lessons of Vietnam were that the US lacked the stomach to see the fight through, rather than the fact they simply lost a Guerilla war.

I am convinced that this is the mindset of Cheney and, from the noises emanating from Bush's own camp, it may well be the President's mindset as well.

All indications are that Bush is stubborn enough to ignore the Baker recommendations. This would be folly.

Some lawmakers have warned against the hype surrounding the Baker commission, echoing administration remarks that it will be one of several assessments done.

"They should not become a substitute for the call of the commander in chief,'' Hunter said.

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that the Baker study should become a substitute for the call of the Commander in Chief, but - when things are going as disastrously as they are - any Commander in Chief worth his salt should listen very carefully to what Baker has to say.

Where I see a possible area of dispute lies in the different aspirations that both camps possess.

Baker - possibly working along the lines of Bush I - is seeking to extradite the US from a foreign policy debacle. Bush is seeking to avoid acknowledging defeat.

There is a wide chasm between both those viewpoints. One concerns itself with the good of the nation as a whole, the other with the political legacy of one man. And that one man is determined not to admit that he got it wrong.

It's going to be an interesting couple of weeks.

Click title for full article.

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