Amid the highly charged political infighting in Washington over what to do in Iraq, you might be excused for not noticing that a bipartisan commission quietly started work last spring with a mandate to help the Bush administration rethink its policy toward the war. Of course, anything labeled “bipartisan commission” seems almost guaranteed to be ignored by a highly partisan White House that is notoriously hostile to outside advice and famously devoted to “staying the course.” But what makes this particular commission hard to dismiss is that it is led by perhaps the one man who might be able to break through the tight phalanx of senior officials who advise the president and filter his information. That person is the former secretary of state, Republican insider, and consigliere of the Bush family, James A. Baker III.
Since March, Baker, backed by a team of experienced national-security hands, has been busily at work trying to devise a fresh set of policies to help the president chart a new course in–or, perhaps, to get the hell out of–Iraq. But as with all things involving James Baker, there’s a deeper political agenda at work as well. “Baker is primarily motivated by his desire to avoid a war at home–that things will fall apart not on the battlefield but at home. So he wants a ceasefire in American politics,” a member of one of the commission’s working groups told me. Specifically, he said, if the Democrats win back one or both houses of Congress in November, they would unleash a series of investigative hearings on Iraq, the war on terrorism, and civil liberties that could fatally weaken the administration and remove the last props of political support for the war, setting the stage for a potential Republican electoral disaster in 2008. “I guess there are people in the [Republican] party, on the Hill and in the White House, who see a political train wreck coming, and they’ve called in Baker to try to reroute the train.”
“The object of our policy has to be to get our little white asses out of there as soon as possible,” another working-group participant told me. To do that, he said, Baker must confront the president “like the way a family confronts an alcoholic. You bring everyone in, and you say, ‘Look, my friend, it’s time to change.’”
Neoconservatives are terrified that Bush will use Baker the same way his father did – as a shrewd fixer – and that Baker will use the younger Bush the way he used his father – as a path to power for himself. Earlier this month, former White House chief of staff Andrew Card acknowledged having tried to persuade Bush to replace Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld with Baker. Many in Washington regard such a move as a viable possibility.
But Baker’s history indicates that he represents a change of approach more than a change of policy. There may be little actual difference between ``Stability first" and staying the course: Both would require staying in Iraq until the country is peaceful.
And while ``Redeploy and contain" would change troop locations, it, too, could involve many more years of fighting.
In 1968, Richard M. Nixon acknowledged the need to end US involvement in Vietnam. But intense fighting continued for five more years, while the public accepted the idea that their president was seeking ``peace with honor."
If Baker can buy Bush two more years to pursue ``peace with honor," and give Republican presidential candidates a way to express misgivings about the war while continuing to fight for an honorable peace, he will have performed the ultimate service to the Bushes and the Republicans.
He will have enabled them to evade responsibility for a devastating war.
What’s the viewpoint on Baker? I always thought he was one of those guys where, even if you disagreed with his particular politics, he was always viewed as incredibly competent and skilled at what he does, and that he was not viewed as particularly sleezy or dishonorable.
Interestingly enough, I’m reading Richard Clarke’s “Against All Enemies” (yeah, I know, I’m two years behind the times).
According to him, Baker pushed hard against military action in Iraq during the first Gulf War, but when overruled by GHWB, busted his ass to pull the coalition together to fight it.
Seems like a principled guy. I’d like to see him kick Wolfowitz in the jimmies someday.
My take on him, and he’s not someone I’ve paid alot of attention to, is that he is incredibly competant and skilled at problem solving. That said, I’m hoping the problem he’s really trying to solve is how to stabilize the Iraq situation not how to stabilize Republican approval ratings. Maybe one comes with the other to some degree, and that’s fine, but I just hope his priorities are in the right place.
What’s the viewpoint on Baker? I always thought he was one of those guys where, even if you disagreed with his particular politics, he was always viewed as incredibly competent and skilled at what he does, and that he was not viewed as particularly sleazy or dishonorable.
After “fixing” the Florida 2000 recount for Bush, I’m content to call Baker both sleazy and dishonorable.
I actually remember him most from the Reagan administration, which is where I drew my conclusions as to his reputation (though I was in middle school at the time).
I was unaware that he “fixed” the vote in Florida. How did he do this?
Well yes, obviously, but how can those who plan, engage and continue the occupation gain any advantage from this? I can’t imagine dead soldiers mean a damn to those in charge, or a Halliburton exec.
Violence in Iraq could end “within months” if Iran and Syria joined efforts to stabilise the country, says Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.
He told the BBC the move would “be the beginning of the end of terrorism”.
The idea for the US to open talks with Iran and Syria over Iraq is said to be under consideration by a panel of experts examining US policy on Iraq.
The panel, led by a former US secretary of state, is also said to think that “staying the course” is untenable.
However, Mr Talabani said was not worried by reports that James Baker’s panel may recommend an early - or phased - withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq.
“I’m sure that no-one will decide to pull out quickly in Iraq,” he told the BBC’s Jim Muir.
That’s assuming getting a grasp of the fuckup in Iraq is really the primary goal here. I’m tending to assume it is and now the grownups are finally stepping in to get Junior’s ass out of trouble again. However, I also see the point of view of very frustrated people who recognised the calamity ahead before this war even started and who now see the very people most responsible trying to get off the hook for what they did to the country.
Any reasonable person knows what happens with Iraq is much more important than what happens with Bush and his advisors, cronies and apologists in the big picture. Getting that situation at least stabilized somehow without exploding the entire region isn’t even optional. We have to do it somehow.
But I have to confess a real, bloody, desire for some heavy handed accounting here. I want investigations. I want firing squads. But I’ll settle for the rendering of history and a bright light shown on this crowd for all to see and understand.
I would bet that Baker would advise Bush to set a deadline with Iraq on when we start to pull out. Then build in a few more months because nothing ever seems to happen on schedule there. It’s pretty obvious that unless we set some sort of outline or goal, the Iraqi government is content to let us stay there and will continue to use our help with no end in sight.
I’m sure that most of the older advisers knew this as a possibility. Baker, having served his dad, might be one of the only people that can get through his thick skull with some logical ideas on an Exit Strategy.
