[Texgreen] Bush isolated, failing in war; no way out

[Roger Baker]

Democrat's position; lets get out slowly to prove our resolve and its  
possible something good and unanticipated could happen before we're  
completely out. -- Roger

               *******************************************************

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/ 
AR2006101901907.html>

Major Change Expected In Strategy for Iraq War

By Michael Abramowitz and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, October 20, 2006; Page A01

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  
congressman Lee H. Hamilton, a Democrat. Both Baker and Hamilton have  
made it clear that they do not see the administration's current Iraq  
policy as working -- though they do not 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 noted that 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  
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."

Bush has been adamant that the United States will not withdraw its  
troops until the Iraqi government can defend itself.

Like many who have met with the president in recent months to discuss  
Iraq policy, author and military expert Robert Kaplan said he  
detected clear limits to Bush's flexibility. "He seemed genuinely to  
enjoy the challenges to his policy that we threw at him," Kaplan  
said, describing a session Bush held with several outside strategists  
at Camp David in June. "He wasn't at all defensive. He appeared open  
to any new direction or tactic, except withdrawal, and yet that is  
what he might be faced with after November."

Along with the political debate, there also is growing frustration  
inside the U.S. military over Iraq, with some officers debating  
privately whether the situation there is salvageable. In recent  
weeks, senior military officers have offered a torrent of negative  
comments, a sharp contrast to the official optimism of the past three  
years.

"We're obviously very concerned about what we're seeing" in Baghdad,  
Army Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, the top U.S. military spokesman  
in Iraq, said yesterday. He indicated that changes to a plan to  
restore security to the capital are being considered. "We find the  
insurgent elements, the extremists, are in fact punching back hard,"  
Caldwell said.

In recent days, the demand for change on Iraq has been especially  
notable from inside the president's party: Sen. John W. Warner (R- 
Va.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, returned from a  
trip to Iraq saying that country was adrift and all options should be  
considered. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a conservative Republican from  
Texas, said this week that she is willing to consider the wisdom of  
somehow breaking up Iraq.

Until now, Democrats' calls for withdrawing troops have been largely  
irrelevant, but if Democrats take one or both houses of Congress next  
month, their views could become significant in shaping strategy.

Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), who would take over the chairmanship of  
the Armed Services Committee, said he favors beginning a phased  
withdrawal of U.S. troops that "gives the Iraqis notice that they're  
going to be looking into the abyss" unless they make necessary changes.

One version of this option was presented to House Democrats last  
month by former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who  
outlined a four-step plan that would include a joint declaration by  
the U.S. and Iraqi governments on a timeline for the departure of  
U.S. troops, a follow-up international conference on stabilizing Iraq  
and a greater focus on economic reconstruction.

Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), who is campaigning to become the new  
majority leader should Democrats take power, said many in his caucus  
like the idea behind the Brzezinski plan, though perhaps not all the  
specifics. "The Iraqis have to understand that there is a time  
frame," he said. "Our commitment is substantial, but it is not  
unending."

People familiar with the work of the Iraq Study Group say it is also  
mulling a variant of the gradual withdrawal idea that would move U.S.  
troops out of Iraq but leave a residual force in the region to keep  
the violence from spreading and Iraq's neighbors from meddling.

Another idea getting a closer look is a new power-sharing agreement  
that would give more power to autonomous regions -- Kurdish in the  
north, Sunni in the middle and Shiite in the south -- while weakening  
the central government. This idea is most closely identified with  
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), the senior Democrat on the Foreign  
Relations Committee, and Leslie H. Gelb, a former president of the  
Council on Foreign Relations. Because there is no oil in what would  
be the Sunni-controlled area, Biden and Gelb envision some sort of  
scheme to share oil revenue with the Sunnis to get them to agree to  
such a plan.

Biden said yesterday that if the Democrats win big in next month's  
elections, "You have a lot of Republicans who are going to openly  
join Democrats and will push back hard against the president."