- The Washington Times - Wednesday, November 15, 2006

The search for a solution to the war in Iraq has been put on hold in the government until a bipartisan, 10-member commission submits its recommendations next month.

After a volcanic election that ousted Republicans and put Democrats in charge of Congress, largely because of mounting U.S. war casualties, a huge gulf still exists over what to do next.

President Bush, admitting to deep frustration over the course of the war, is open to “fresh ideas” about how to fight the war, says chief of staff Josh Bolten. Democrats, who won last week on the promise of a new military strategy, still have no detailed plan of their own, except withdrawal. Their leaders said on the Sunday talk shows they would push for phased troop reductions when they take over in January.

The chief architect of Mr. Bush’s military strategy, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, has submitted his resignation and a new defense chief, Robert Gates, who has spent most of his professional life in intelligence work and is known as a compromiser, will take over once the Senate confirms him.

Meantime, all hopes now rest with the congressionally sanctioned blue ribbon Iraq Study Group, a special commission led by former Republican Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Indiana Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, a Democrat, to devise a new plan to try to end a terrorist and sectarian war with no end in sight. The panel has interviewed Iraqi leaders, U.S. military officials and this week met with Mr. Bush and senior defense and intelligence officials.

Strangely, the panel, which includes former Clinton chief of staff Leon Panetta, Clinton pal Vernon Jordan, and former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, has few military/foreign policy experts. Moreover, there is little or no evidence thus far that Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton have been able to come up with a consensus that can appeal to both sides.

In his few recent media interviews, Mr. Baker expressed doubt a U.S. troop withdrawal can be pulled off without a full-scale civil war that plunges the country into chaos.

Last week, Mr. Hamilton told The Washington Post “We need to reach agreement, and that may not be possible.” Translation: Panel Democrats may not go along with anything that does not include some troop withdrawal next year, nor will House and Senate Democrats.

The gulf that exists in the Senate, for example, is exemplified by two wildly divergent positions. Democratic Sen. Carl Levln of Michigan, the incoming Armed Services Committee chairman, wants “to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months.” Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona wants to send more troops there, warning any withdrawal would result in chaos not only in Iraq but throughout the Mideast.

Meanwhile, the terrorist and sectarian warfare worsens each week and many in the Bush administration are losing confidence in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government. Mr. Bush wonders privately whether the Iraqis will ever be able to produce civilian leaders strong enough to overcome the terror insurgency.

In this nearly hopeless environment, Mr. Baker is searching to bring outside adversaries, like Syria and Iran, into a solution. He held a three-hour dinner meeting with Iran’s U.N. ambassador that raised eyebrows among neoconservatives who support the war.

Clearly there will be Democratic withdrawal resolutions next year, if not before, though Mr. Levin told The Post any troop measure “would not contain detailed benchmarks mandating how many troops should be withdrawn by specific dates.”

It is unclear what Mr. Baker’s panel will produce, but my instincts tell me any plan to save Iraq must ultimately involve a feared Iraqi force that can more quickly take over the security of its country. That force must increase so we can decrease.

Reconstruction and all other forms of noncombat, nonmilitary aid must give way to one overriding mission: recruiting and training a much larger and more lethal Iraqi army, including special forces and a military police force second to none. U.S. troops there must be turned into a training, air logistics and weapons supply force as quickly as possible.

A critical strategy change: To prevent terrorists from killing more Iraqi recruits, training must be done in secret, remote locations elsewhere in the region. The job of the U.S. military afterward will be to arm these beefed-up security forces to the teeth with the best and most lethal weaponry we can give them to fight for their country for as long as it takes.

This is a page out of President Ronald Reagan’s playbook when he drove the Evil Empire out of Afghanistan and fought the Marxist guerrillas in now-democratic Nicaragua — without the use of U.S. troops.

A plan that turns the U.S. military in Iraq into an enlarged recruiting and training force can win support from a divided Congress, as well as the Iraqis, because it will hasten the day when they’ll be doing all the fighting.

Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times, is a nationally syndicated columnist.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide