Iraq Study Group's Shortcomings

While the Baker-Hamilton Report accurately summarizes the worsening conditions in Iraq, it does not provide, as Center for Strategic and International Studies Chair Anthony Cordesman addressed in his reaction piece to the ISG report, "workable suggestions for creating or incentivizing such action [that would move Iraq towards reconciliation]."

Policymakers, Mr. Cordesman cites, take for granted that US policy in Iraq is as much to blame for the internal problems that have inflamed sectarian divisions in the country, in addition to the Iraqi government’s shortcomings. As Mr. Cordesman cites,

"The U.S. destroyed the secular core of the country by disbanding the Ba'ath. The U.S. created a constitutional process long before Iraq was ready, and created an intensely divisive document with more than 50 key areas of “clarification” including federation, control of oil resources and money, control of security, the role of religion, the nature of the legal system, etc. The U.S. created an electoral system that almost forced Iraqis to vote to be Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds and divided the nation on sectarian and ethnic lines."

The ISG report takes these important points for granted. Rather than providing incentives to help Iraqis move towards reconciliation and towards secular centralization, it puts the blame and responsibility solely of this momentous task on the shoulders of the weak Iraqi government; essentially telling them that if they don't shape up, the US will begin reducing military/economic aid. These ultimatum-style recommendations that the ISG report puts forward, according to Mr. Cordesman, does not strengthen the Iraqi government, but in fact, delegitimizes it. My own examination of the ISG report finds the same conclusions as Mr. Cordesman.

• How does the US help Iraqi government towards reconciliation?
• What actions do we take if Shi'ite cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr does not cooperate and go along towards an Iraqi unity government?
• Does the US have the authority to use military force against his militia?
• How does the US help craft a system of governance that would allow for the fair sharing and distribution of Iraqi resources, particularly oil?

These are questions US policymakers should be addressing, rather than threatening to remove our resources lest we leave Iraq in a more precarious, destabilized state and that would be to no one's best interest. Read more of Mr. Cordesman's reaction to the ISG report titled "The Baker-Hamilton Study Group Report: The Elephant Gives Birth to a Mouse."

Technorati Tags:
Iraq Study Group
Iran
Democrats
US Foreign Policy
Bush Administration

Pride and Prejudice: President Bush’s Take on Iran and Syria

The Iranians have not had fond relations with the United States in the past twenty seven years. In 1979, they deposed of the Shaw, took 66 Americans hostage in Tehran for 444 days, and formed a nonsecular government regime led by the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Today, that same regime has an elected president in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who calls for the destruction of Israel, claims that the Holocaust never happened, and now defies the will of the international community by insisting that it has a right to possess nuclear technology.

Syria, Iran’s neighbor to the west, is also a country in question. The Syrian government is accused of having a hand in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri as well as the brutal killing of former Cabinet Minister Pierre Gemayel, an outspoken opponent of Syria’s military presence in Lebanon. Take the close connection with the Syrian government aiding and abetting Hezbollah in Lebanon and it becomes clear why President Bush and his foreign policy advisers fundamentally distrust both the above governments.

Now that the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group (ISG) report is out, its recommendations have been disclosed for the world to scrutinize. The most controversial of these recommendations propose in bringing in Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria, to form an Iraq support group that would help stabilize the country. This particular recommendation was not well received by the administration. President Bush, alongside British Prime Minister Tony Blair last Wednesday made it clear that the US will not invite Iran to the table regarding Iraq, unless it “verifiably suspends [its nuclear] enrichment program.” The message to Syria had the same demonstrative tone calling for the Syrian government to stop aiding Hezbollah and to cooperate with the UN’s investigation of former Prime Minister Hariri’s assassination.

In order for the process to move forward, the US can either allow Iran and Syria to the table or force both countries to acquiesce to the administration’s demands. President Bush made it clear that he has no intention of budging from his position.

Interestingly, the president’s go-it-alone-cowboy mentality three years ago has now transformed into the skeptical disposition of Elizabeth Bennet, the protagonist in Jane Austin’s Pride and Prejudice. It is the president’s pride—believing that the US, along with the “coalition of the willing” in 2003 could resolve the Iraqi question—that has placed the president in an uncomfortable position to listen to former Secretary of State James Baker (a close friend of the Bush family). The ISG report recommends that the president ask his enemies for help in the Iraqi experiment when the president had hoped to accomplish this mission himself. The president’s prejudice towards Israel has also influenced his intractable approach towards Iran and Syria. With Iran and Hezbollah calling for the destruction of Israel and Syria supporting Hezbollah, the president feels that any form of conciliatory agreement with these two countries must be dealt with a heavy-handed approach.

The ISG report makes a legitimate and logical case that in order to stabilize Iraq and secure its fledgling government its neighbors must have a stake in providing it with economic aid and security. There is no question that the region could benefit greatly from a stable Iraq. However, bringing in Iraq’s neighbors as well the entire region to the table is incumbent upon US leadership. At this critical crossroad, with the Democrats looming in January, the president must make his choice. Maintain his brutish approach against Iran and Syria or swallow his pride and allow both countries, the former of which he labeled as one of the countries that formed the axis of evil, to sit alongside the US on a table discussing the future of Iraq. A couple of words of biblical wisdom for the president: “pride often comes before the fall.”

Technorati Tags:
Iraq Study Group
Iran
Democrats
US Foreign Policy
Bush Administration