The genteel revolt that is remaking US policy on Iraq

[Guest Warwick Green]

The genteel revolt that is remaking US policy on Iraq

Republican veterans push for end to interventionist approach

Julian Borger in Washington

Saturday October 21, 2006

The Guardian

A "polite rebellion" is under way among previously loyal allies of President Bush aimed at persuading him to change course in Iraq and quietly abandon the foreign policy doctrine he had hoped would be the centrepiece of his legacy.

Many senior Republicans believe the "Bush Doctrine" has hit a wall in Iraq and lies in ruins. The rebels, including many foreign policy veterans close to the president's father, see it as an obstacle to stabilising Iraq and extricating US forces. But they have decided that earlier, head-on challenges have only deepened the president's resolve, and a less confrontational approach was needed that avoided blame for past mistakes if there was to be any hope of a fundamental rethink.

"It's a polite rebellion by moderate and military-minded Republicans," said Steven Clemons, a Washington analyst. "Any walk-away from the Bush line is going to be covered with a lot of cosmetics to make it look like it's not really a big change."

The focus of the new approach is the Iraq Study Group (ISG), a bipartisan commission co-chaired by the first President Bush's secretary of state, James Baker, which will present its recommendations after the November elections.

Those elections are another reason for urgency. If the Democrats capture the House of Representatives, as expected, they will be in a position to cut funding for the war if they are not listened to. Even if they fall short of an absolute majority in the Senate, there are now Republican senators signalling that they could side with the opposition if there is not a decisive rethink on Iraq. David Mack, a diplomat in the first Bush administration who helped rally Arab support for the Gulf War, said: "We are really at a point where any talk of victory is an illusion."

Mr Mack, who served as a consultant to the ISG, said he was expressing personal opinions that did not necessarily reflect the views of the panel, whose work is still classified. He insisted the Bush administration would have to redefine victory. It would have to give up its rhetoric about spreading democracy, as well as its aversion to talking to Syria or Iran - both central planks of the Bush Doctrine, which emphasises the muscular use of US power to isolate enemy "rogue regimes".

Success might then be achieved in the form of "an orderly exit from the country that doesn't make a bad situation worse".

Those involved with the Baker commission hope that its recommendations, coming from friends and camouflaged as tactical tweaks, could offer President Bush a face-saving way out of the current bloody impasse. But they concede there is no guarantee of a decisive change.

There is no consensus on the way out of Iraq among the president's critics while resistance to change is entrenched and led by Vice-President Dick Cheney."I know what the president thinks. I know what I think. And we're not looking for an exit strategy. We're looking for victory," Mr Cheney told Time magazine.

The counter-attack by Republican "realists" has been led by close confidants of George Bush Sr, injecting the generational tensions of a powerful dynasty into an already heated debate. "A future Shakespeare will have a lot to write about," a former official from the first Bush administration now working with the Baker commission, noted this week.

There have been Republican rebellions against the administration's Iraq policy before but they have failed to exert any influence. The rebels' open questioning of the rationale for the war was regarded as disloyal and they were quickly excluded from White House discussions.

By contrast, Mr Baker's loyalty had hitherto been unquestioned. He is a fellow Texan, and has long been the Bush family's fixer. He has abstained from second-guessing the decision to go to war, despite recent intense questioning, and played a role in drumming up foreign contributions to fund Iraqi development. He personally asked the president's permission before agreeing to chair the ISG.

Mr Clemons said Mr Baker was seeking to "provide camouflage for changing direction". Nervousness about the death toll in Iraq and worries about a debacle at the polls in November have led other former loyalists to break ranks in recent days, including Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, another Texan conservative, who said this week that she was willing to contemplate Iraq's partition, an idea dismissed by the White House as a "nonstarter".

Perhaps the most worrying development for the Bush team is the public loss of faith expressed by a powerful Republican loyalist, Senator John Warner, the head of the armed services committee with very close links to the military.

Senator Warner was instrumental in the creation of the ISG and is its most senior sponsor. He returned from his eighth trip to Iraq earlier this month and declared the situation was "markedly different" from earlier visits. It was a "very serious situation" that was "simply drifting sideways".

In the next few months, he warned the administration would have to ask itself: "Is there a change of course that we should take?"

The cautiousness with which this rebellion is proceeding is influenced not just by anxiety over alienating the president and entrenching resistance from Mr Cheney. It is also informed by an awareness that there are no good options left on the table.

ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1927944,00.html

[margrace]

The genteel revolt that is remaking US policy on Iraq

Republican veterans push for end to interventionist approach

Julian Borger in Washington

Saturday October 21, 2006

The Guardian

A "polite rebellion" is under way among previously loyal allies of President Bush aimed at persuading him to change course in Iraq and quietly abandon the foreign policy doctrine he had hoped would be the centrepiece of his legacy.

Many senior Republicans believe the "Bush Doctrine" has hit a wall in Iraq and lies in ruins. The rebels, including many foreign policy veterans close to the president's father, see it as an obstacle to stabilising Iraq and extricating US forces. But they have decided that earlier, head-on challenges have only deepened the president's resolve, and a less confrontational approach was needed that avoided blame for past mistakes if there was to be any hope of a fundamental rethink.

"It's a polite rebellion by moderate and military-minded Republicans," said Steven Clemons, a Washington analyst. "Any walk-away from the Bush line is going to be covered with a lot of cosmetics to make it look like it's not really a big change."

The focus of the new approach is the Iraq Study Group (ISG), a bipartisan commission co-chaired by the first President Bush's secretary of state, James Baker, which will present its recommendations after the November elections.

Those elections are another reason for urgency. If the Democrats capture the House of Representatives, as expected, they will be in a position to cut funding for the war if they are not listened to. Even if they fall short of an absolute majority in the Senate, there are now Republican senators signalling that they could side with the opposition if there is not a decisive rethink on Iraq. David Mack, a diplomat in the first Bush administration who helped rally Arab support for the Gulf War, said: "We are really at a point where any talk of victory is an illusion."

Mr Mack, who served as a consultant to the ISG, said he was expressing personal opinions that did not necessarily reflect the views of the panel, whose work is still classified. He insisted the Bush administration would have to redefine victory. It would have to give up its rhetoric about spreading democracy, as well as its aversion to talking to Syria or Iran - both central planks of the Bush Doctrine, which emphasises the muscular use of US power to isolate enemy "rogue regimes".

Success might then be achieved in the form of "an orderly exit from the country that doesn't make a bad situation worse".

Those involved with the Baker commission hope that its recommendations, coming from friends and camouflaged as tactical tweaks, could offer President Bush a face-saving way out of the current bloody impasse. But they concede there is no guarantee of a decisive change.

There is no consensus on the way out of Iraq among the president's critics while resistance to change is entrenched and led by Vice-President Dick Cheney."I know what the president thinks. I know what I think. And we're not looking for an exit strategy. We're looking for victory," Mr Cheney told Time magazine.

The counter-attack by Republican "realists" has been led by close confidants of George Bush Sr, injecting the generational tensions of a powerful dynasty into an already heated debate. "A future Shakespeare will have a lot to write about," a former official from the first Bush administration now working with the Baker commission, noted this week.

There have been Republican rebellions against the administration's Iraq policy before but they have failed to exert any influence. The rebels' open questioning of the rationale for the war was regarded as disloyal and they were quickly excluded from White House discussions.

By contrast, Mr Baker's loyalty had hitherto been unquestioned. He is a fellow Texan, and has long been the Bush family's fixer. He has abstained from second-guessing the decision to go to war, despite recent intense questioning, and played a role in drumming up foreign contributions to fund Iraqi development. He personally asked the president's permission before agreeing to chair the ISG.

Mr Clemons said Mr Baker was seeking to "provide camouflage for changing direction". Nervousness about the death toll in Iraq and worries about a debacle at the polls in November have led other former loyalists to break ranks in recent days, including Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, another Texan conservative, who said this week that she was willing to contemplate Iraq's partition, an idea dismissed by the White House as a "nonstarter".

Perhaps the most worrying development for the Bush team is the public loss of faith expressed by a powerful Republican loyalist, Senator John Warner, the head of the armed services committee with very close links to the military.

Senator Warner was instrumental in the creation of the ISG and is its most senior sponsor. He returned from his eighth trip to Iraq earlier this month and declared the situation was "markedly different" from earlier visits. It was a "very serious situation" that was "simply drifting sideways".

In the next few months, he warned the administration would have to ask itself: "Is there a change of course that we should take?"

The cautiousness with which this rebellion is proceeding is influenced not just by anxiety over alienating the president and entrenching resistance from Mr Cheney. It is also informed by an awareness that there are no good options left on the table.

ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1927944,00.html

Right from the start I was against this invasion. I was called all mannor of names when I compared it to Vietnam and predicted the same outcome.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

America has big troubles with its foreign policy. They are being pushed into a lot of corners because of it.

[jdobbin]

Right from the start I was against this invasion. I was called all mannor of names when I compared it to Vietnam and predicted the same outcome.

Peter Jennings was roundly ridiculed for saying that there was no doubt that the U.S. could defeat Iraq militarily but he wondered out loud if the U.S. could win the peace.

[August1991]

You quote a Guardian article about a Republican revolt? I'm astonished!

Next up. The National Review on the threat North Korea poses to the world. *yawn*

Read newspapers but read critically. Just because it's on the Internet, doesn't mean it's true.

[jdobbin]

You quote a Guardian article about a Republican revolt? I'm astonished!

Next up. The National Review on the threat North Korea poses to the world. *yawn*

Read newspapers but read critically. Just because it's on the Internet, doesn't mean it's true.

So top level Republicans are not moving away from the Bush Doctrine?

[Guest Warwick Green]

You quote a Guardian article about a Republican revolt? I'm astonished!

Next up. The National Review on the threat North Korea poses to the world. *yawn*

Read newspapers but read critically. Just because it's on the Internet, doesn't mean it's true.

The work of the Baker commission has been reported by many media. And this weekend Bush is meeting with his generals to come up with something before the elections to try and show the US public that he knows what he is doing in Iraq.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Major change expected in Iraq strategy

The growing doubts among GOP lawmakers about the administration's Iraq strategy, coupled with the prospect of Democratic wins in next month's midterm elections, will soon force the Bush administration to abandon its open-ended commitment to the war, according to lawmakers in both parties, foreign policy experts and others involved in policymaking.

Senior figures in both parties are coming to the conclusion that the Bush administration will be unable to achieve its goal of a stable, democratic Iraq within a politically feasible time frame. Agitation is growing in Congress for alternatives to the administration's strategy of keeping Iraq in one piece and getting its security forces up and running while 140,000 U.S. troops try to keep a lid on rapidly spreading sectarian violence.

On the campaign trail, Democratic candidates are hammering Republican candidates for backing a failed Iraq policy, and GOP defense of the war is growing muted. A new NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released this week showed that voters are more confident in Democrats' ability to handle the Iraq war than the Republicans' -- a reversal from the last election.

Few officials in either party are talking about an immediate pullout of U.S. combat troops. But interest appears to be growing in several broad ideas. One would be some kind of effort to divide the country along regional lines. Another, favored by many Democrats, is a gradual withdrawal of troops over a set period of time. A third would be a dramatic scaling-back of U.S. ambitions in Iraq, giving up on democracy and focusing only on stability.

Many senior Republicans with close ties to the administration also believe that essential to a successful strategy in Iraq are an aggressive new diplomatic initiative to secure a Middle East peace settlement and a new effort to engage Iraq's neighbors, such as Syria and Iran, in helping stabilize the country -- perhaps through an international conference.

One point on which adherents of these sharply different approaches appear to agree is that "staying the course" is fast becoming a dead letter. "I don't believe that we can continue based on an open-ended, unconditional presence," said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, a centrist Maine Republican. "I don't think there's any question about that, that there will be a change" in the U.S. strategy in Iraq after next month's elections.

Richard N. Haass, a former Bush administration foreign policy official, told reporters yesterday that the situation is reaching a "tipping point" both in Iraq and in U.S. politics. "More of essentially the same is going to be a policy that very few people are going to be able to support," said Haass, now the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. He added that the administration's current Iraq strategy "has virtually no chance of succeeding" and predicted that "change will come."

Many Senate Republicans are waiting for the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel co-chaired by former secretary of state James A. Baker III, a Republican, and former Indiana representative Lee H. Hamilton, a Democrat. Both Baker and Hamilton have made it clear that they do not see the current administration Iraq policy as working -- though they don't plan to issue recommendations until well after the midterm elections, probably in early January.

Many foreign policy experts believe that the commission could sway President Bush more than most such study groups because of Baker's close ties to the Bush family.

In an interview this week, Hamilton said there is no "silver bullet" to turning the situation around in Iraq but said frustration is clearly rising over the current course. "I can't walk out the door without someone handing me a recommendation," he said.

Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he is open to "significant changes" in the U.S. approach and is hoping the Iraq Study Group can supply them. "I don't think anyone in the administration is pleased about the current state of affairs," he said. "I would hope that members of the administration are willing to learn from past mistakes . . . and choose a different path that would allow us to meet our objectives."

How open Bush will be to a change in course is unclear, even as the violence escalates -- this week has been one of the bloodiest for the Americans in Baghdad in months. In recent remarks about Iraq, Bush has sounded a more flexible tone, saying he is open to suggestions for changes and emphasizing that his commanders adjust tactics constantly. He has repeatedly made it clear that U.S. patience with the new Iraqi government is not open-ended.

White House officials describe the current turmoil over Iraq policy in Washington as an expected byproduct of the upsurge in violence. Press secretary Tony Snow yesterday dismissed a dramatic about-face in policy -- such as a division of the country or phased withdrawal -- as a "non-starter" and called the idea that the White House will seek a course correction in Iraq "a bunch of hooey."

Rest of story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15338789/

[Higgly]

Peter Jennings was roundly ridiculed for saying that there was no doubt that the U.S. could defeat Iraq militarily but he wondered out loud if the U.S. could win the peace.

Must have been a Lib!