- The Washington Times - Friday, October 20, 2006

President Bush says it’s not true, but recent events related to Iraq indicate the administration is leaning toward the George Aiken option: Declare victory and come home.

Mr. Aiken is the late Republican senator from Vermont who is credited with offering that advice early in the Vietnam War. It could have saved us Americans and the Vietnamese a lot of grief.

A number of observers in recent years, including your humble column-scrivener, have suggested a similar answer to our worsening, no-win situation in Iraq. The White House has not listened, and the Iraq debacle has gotten worse. Iraq has sunk deeper into what looks like a civil war and the Bush administration has sunk deeper into denial.

But recent events indicate that, despite Mr. Bush’s mantra about “staying the course” in Iraq, he’s looking for an exit strategy.

Former Secretary of State James Baker, a savvy negotiator and reliable Bush family friend, has re-emerged as the Republican co-chairman with former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. With the administration’s support, the study group was created at the urging of Congress last March to reassess the war and come up with suggestions.

The group is withholding its report until after the November elections. But Mr. Baker’s remarks in recent interviews offer important hints.

For example, Mr. Baker teased our curiosity in an ABC-TV interview last Sunday with this: “I think it’s fair to say our commission believes that there are alternatives between the stated alternatives — the ones that are out there in the political debate — of ‘stay the course’ and ‘cut and run.”’

Amid the cacophony of Washington’s polarized shouting matches, Mr. Baker’s words sounded like the voice of reason Americans took for granted in the years of President George H.W. Bush. Mr. Baker stood with the elder Mr. Bush against those who wanted the U.S. to invade Baghdad during the Persian Gulf war, in defiance of the United Nations mandate. The regional instability Mr. Baker feared from such an invasion has happened with today’s Iraq war.

Obviously, the younger Mr. Bush should have listened to Mr. Baker’s advice before embarking on his Iraq adventure. Instead, he went along in the heat of post-September 11 passions with Vice President Dick Cheney and other eager neo-conservatives who thought U.S. soldiers would be greeted with flowers and candy.

Author-journalist Bob Woodward and other close observers say the younger Mr. Bush steadfastly avoids turning to his dad for advice, for reasons all his own, despite his father’s superior international expertise. Yet, though the younger Bush’s often vows to “stay the course” against those who want to “cut and run,” he also says he is willing to “change tactics” in Iraq if the Baker-Hamilton group recommends it.

If so, the Baker group could offer cover for the younger Mr. Bush to do something he is loathe to do in public: change his mind.

His promise to “stay the course” in Iraq until “the job gets done” could undergo subtle alteration. If Mr. Baker’s group defines a new “job” for America in Iraq, it could “get done” in whatever way the president says it should. Americans could declare victory and come home.

But what next? If Mr. Bush’s softened stance offers a light at the end of Iraq’s long, dark tunnel, to borrow a Vietnam-era metaphor, let us hope the light is not that of an oncoming train.

In interviews, Mr. Baker has rejected a quick withdrawal from Iraq, fearing “the biggest civil war you’ve ever seen.” Unfortunately, the mounting casualties amid factional fighting indicate Iraq already has a growing civil war.

In fact, Iraq’s best direction may come through a partitioning of the country between its dominant Sunni, Shi’ite and Kurdish factions. President Bush rejected that option this week in expressing support for Iraq’s embattled Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

But that’s just as well. An American endorsement of partitioning probably would doom its acceptance by Iraqis and their regional neighbors. If Iraq is to be partitioned, responsible Iraqi leaders will have to work that out.

Mr. Baker is right to say Americans cannot be the sole deciders of Iraq’s future. There are no perfect or peaceful solutions for Iraq in the short term. There are more hard days to come. But, whether in war or in peace, Iraq’s future ultimately must be decided by Iraqis. As that happens, the best thing that Americans can do is to declare victory and get out of the way.

Clarence Page is a nationally syndicated columnist.

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

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide