Progress on the Syrian Front

The New York Times recently reported that Syria will allow U.S. officials from the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to visit Damascus in order to screen and process Iraqis who have taken refuge in the Syrian capital.

Prior to the visit to Syria that brought on this new agreement, only the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees was allowed into Syria to process Iraqi refugees. UNHCR could then refer refugees to the U.S. for resettling, but many of these refugees were unable to reach State Department or DHS offices outside of Syria due to a severe lack of funds.

“This is obviously very good news,” said Jacob Kurtzer, a Congressional advocate for Refugees International. “We’re very happy, but it really does draw attention to the need for a continuous high-level diplomatic presence in Syria and the rest of the region.”

I agree wholeheartedly with Jacob here. Lori Scialabba, who was appointed Associate Director of Refugee, Asylum and International Operations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services just over a year ago, and James Foley, a career diplomat, deserve praise for speaking directly with Syria. We should also praise Syria, the UNHCR and UNICEF for accommodating 100,000 Iraqi schoolchildren in Syrian schools, a three-fold increase from last year's 33,000.

These developments are small victories for all of us, most importantly for the refugees themselves. But we need to keep an eye on the numbers and stay on top of the administration on this issue. There are 150,000 Iraqi schoolchildren in Syria who still need the education every child deserves. And bear in mind that in October, the first month of fiscal year 2008, the U.S. resettled just over 450 Iraqi refugees out of an expected 12,000 for the fiscal year. Already we're behind on our projections, but continuous pressure on Congress and the administration will get us the results we want.

Caption: Iraqi school children in a cramped basement in the Damascus district of Sayyida Zainab, a hub for Iraq refugees; M. Bernard for the UNHCR

Six Months Later, Congress Warms to Iraq Study Group Recommendations

Last week Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Ken Salazar (D-CO) and six of their colleagues -- three Republicans and three Democrats -- introduced the Iraq Study Group (ISG) Recommendations Implementation Act of 2007 (S.1545). If passed into law, it would make the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group report into official U.S. policy. The other cosponsors are Senators Bob Bennett (R-UT), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Robert Casey (D-PA), John Sununu (R-NH) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR). In the House, a companion bill (H.R.2574) was introduced by Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) and co-sponsored by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), Mike McCaul (R-TX), Dan Lipinski (D-IL) and a bipartisan coalition of more than 40 representatives.

The good news: EPIC supports the Iraq Study Group Report and the current legislation to implement the recommendations fully into our policy. The bad news: the legislation just doesn't quite hit on some of the important components in detail.

The report states, "[the recommendations] are comprehensive and need to be implemented in a coordinated fashion. They should not be separated or carried out in isolation." Given that the report offers a thorough, all-encompassing approach to tackling the situation, including humanitarian aid and economic development as crucial ingredients for success, this statement offers a great deal of promise. However, the group's specific recommendations for economic aid are not voiced in the bills.

With this is mind, the legislation does provide some general statements regarding aid and development; urging "economic assistance, commerce, trade, political support, and, if possible, military assistance for the Government of Iraq from non-neighboring Muslim nations." This is a start, and given that the two bills support the full implementation of the report, we should see recommendations 64-71 put into action. Our concern is that, without true talk of development and its specific needs and benefits, it will fall down on the list of priorities and potentially not receive the attention it needs.

Despite the importance of this legislation, the media coverage has been less than determined. ABC News did a short, one-page report, and statements were released from Senators Salazar and Alexander. While the most significant issue the ABC report highlighted was the fact that six months have gone by without debate on such a substantial and comprehensive document, the two senatorial statements did manage to exhibit a remarkable amount of self-congratulations over their bipartisanship.

While reaching across the aisle is an essential criterion for successful legislation (what we're crossing our fingers for), the sheer saturation of partisan rhetoric does not help advance the debate on the policy. Bipartisanship should be assumed and left at that; we need to see the solutions and the particulars at the forefront of debate.

While not as detailed in the economic development and international aid coverage as we wanted, the legislation is not exactly detailed in anything else either. The most important point is the language confirming the comprehensive nature of the Iraq Study Group Report and the intention to keep it as such.

To see some of the effects the legislation would have on actual progress in Iraq, and how you can take action encourage your Senator to sponsor the bill, check out FCNL's report.

Iraq Study Group Gains Renewed Attention

A front page article in today's Washington Post opens: "After an initially tepid reception from policymakers, the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group are getting a second look from the White House and Congress, as officials continue to scour for bipartisan solutions to salvage the American engagement in Iraq."

Last December, EPIC championed the Iraq Study Group report as a bipartisan solution for responsibly moving forward on Iraq. Though the Group's recommendations were initially tabled by the congressional leaders and the Bush administration, we are pleased to see that Washington is finally giving the report the attention and consideration it needs and deserves.

As negotiations on the FY2007 supplemental continue this week, the White House seems poised to accept a measure to impose political benchmarks on the Iraqi government and reduce U.S. assistance to Iraq if those benchmarks are not met. This was one of the key recommendations included in last December's bipartisan report on Iraq, and now seems to be one of the most acceptable measures among both democratic and republican congressional offices.

Nearly all of the recommendations made by Iraq Study Group (ISG) are in accordance with the following goals that EPIC declared in 2003 as essential for peace in Iraq:

• Improve the protection of civilians and human rights
• Promote political participation, inclusion and reconciliation
• Grow Iraq's institutional capacity for security and the rule of law
• Improve government transparency and accountability
• Support job creation and Iraqi-led development, especially at the local level
• Increase international involvement and participation by civil society

However, while the report offers a solid top-down approach to achieving these goals, e.g. regional diplomacy, EPIC maintains that for this strategy to succeed the U.S. must simultaneously encourage development on the local level by increasing U.S. support for Iraqi non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and addressing the current jobs crisis. This bottom-up approach will strengthen the economy and secure the streets, which will in turn increase the likelihood for success of the ISG’s other recommendations.

The U.S., however, cannot be expected to bear the entire burden of these development projects. Through coordination with the International Compact for Iraq—the UN-sponsored framework for providing international assistance—governments, international organizations and NGOs around the world must aid Iraq’s recovery.

The Iraq Study Group has cleared the way for a more honest debate, and EPIC is pleased that the debate is finally getting underway. As the conversation develops, we hope that the President and Congress will soon realize the vital importance of community-based initiatives and economic revitalization to a comprehensive new approach to Iraq. Iraqi-driven peace and development must be the cornerstone of any new plan for the country.

An Update on Kirkuk

Following-up on a blog entry last week where I discussed the sensitive situation in Kirkuk, there has been yet another update worth checking out. Along with last week's ICG report, today's Washington Post has a piece that supports what Ignatius was saying last week. Al Kamen explains that:

"While everyone's been focusing on Baghdad as the key to getting things calmed down in Iraq, the situation in Kirkuk to the north is edging toward serious trouble."

The Arabs are a third party involved in the dispute over Kirkuk, which makes matters even more complicated. The history of an Arab presence there dates back to the Saddam regime, when he had them relocate from the south to occupy the oil rich city. Today, Kurds are worried about the impact the Arab vote will have on the upcoming referendum to decide who will control the city. Kamen explains that, "Arabs are being encouraged to go back 'home,' wherever that is. Kurds whom Saddam kicked out are coming back...and Turkey continues to be concerned about the large Turkmen population in the city."

The army is trying to deal with the potential problem, and has put forth a "request for information" from contractors and urban planners for "the design of the Kirkuk Master Plan" according to Kamen. This plan is meant to target problems concerning land use and "other developments." There is still no mention of conflict resolution strategies and as Epic has said before, there must be a diplomatic effort for real reconciliation to take place. It seems Kamen agrees that there is more to the problem in Kirkuk than just devising a plan that urban planners and contractors can address:

"'Other developments'? Well, unless the tensions can be defused, this might include congestion created by troop movements, tank routes and battery placements...Planners might want to widen streets for evacuation routes...But at least there'll be a plan."

Again, a diplomatic resolution is long over-due for the complex situation in Kirkuk. A diplomatic resolution will ensure that all parties can be content with the outcome, and that these tensions don't spill over into more destabilization in the country. Washington should be a leader in fostering that dialogue between all parties. "If a ray of hope shines through this dismal tangle, it is that all sides in Kirkuk currently seem to agree on the need for dialogue" (ICG 2007).

#1 Challenge: Create Jobs

At an on-the-record event at USIP this morning, Iraqi government spokesman Dr. Ali al-Dubbagh gave some insights into the interaction of politics, economics and violence in Iraq.

The violence in Iraq can be split into three categories, says Dr. al-Dubbagh. Ending the first type of violence -- political violence -- involves a process that must begin with the help of Iraq's neighbors. By continuing to build on the diplomatic groundwork laid at last month's regional summit in Baghdad, the Iraqi government hopes that at next month's international summit in Egypt, it will be able to convince its neighbors to sign on to a collective regional security treaty that respects the sovereignty of Iraq and thereby obligates neighboring states, particularly Iran, to refrain from any actions that undermine the Iraqi government.

Iran's interference is adding more cracks to the the fissions in Iraq's populace. The Iraqi people, says Dr. al-Dubbagh, are moderate and not prone to extremism; this current wave of sectarianism is being perpetrated, with the aid of Iran, by a very small minority of Iraqis. Diplomacy between Arab states will hopefully stop Iran's Shia-led government from their attempts to bring Iraq's Shia majority further into their grasp. This trend needs to reversed because it is harmful to both regional stability and Iraqi national reconciliation.

Once the problem of external meddling has been dealt with, Dr. al-Dubbagh says that Iraq's leaders can move on to mending the divisions that contribute to political violence. Some remedies will come with consensus about revenue sharing, federalism, and a de-Bathifacation commission. An efficient, non-sectarian national army is also needed to reclaim the legitimate use of force from militias like the Mahdi Army. And since an army requires troops, and troops require training, Dr. al-Dubbagh does not see the Americans, who are responsible for training these troops, as able to leave anytime in the foreseeable future.

The second type of violence is economic violence. The Iraqi government's most important challenge of 2007 will be to create jobs in the South. According to Dr. al-Dubbagh, Iraq has $14 billion dollars -- $10 billion in budgetary surplus and $4 billion on loan from Japan -- that it plans to use to create half a million jobs. While he didn't go into details about how jobs will be created, I can only presume that Iraq will re-start their state owned factories, making good on a promise to heed President Bush's call.

Why is this a good thing? Because with an unemployment rate of 50%, militias and other extremist groups have found a golden recruitment opportunity: exploiting a sense of anger and frustration among breadwinners who are no longer able to provide for their families. Job creation means a diminished role for the militias, which in turn means more security and greater economic strengthening as private sector investors feel more confident putting their money into Iraqi markets and industries. This self-perpetuating cycle offers one of the best hopes for stabilizing Iraq, and it all starts with giving people jobs.

Going beyond providing income for the people of Iraq, their government is planning on building 10 new hospitals throughout the provinces, as well as 200 new schools, construction which they plan to finance through Japanese loans. Dr. al-Dubbagh said that Iraq needs more loans like the ones granted by Japan so that it can continue rebuilding infrastructure until oil revenue reaches higher levels, such as the projected $75 billion annual revenue by 2010.

3D Security Strategy and US Iraq Policy

Today, the Senate passed their version of the Iraq spending bill that the House passed last week. The Senate legislation includes some hopeful signs that Congress is changing its focus on America's Iraq policy, including a $130 million allocation for Iraq’s refugees and internally displaced persons and an appropriation of $500 million above and beyond the President’s request in economic assistance to foster development and job creation.

No question that these are hopeful signs. Their inclusion in the spending bill means that the Senate listened to what many, including America's top general in Iraq, have been saying: the US cannot and will not bring stability to Iraq simply by flexing its military muscle; economic and diplomatic work must be done along side military operations. By sending money to bolster humanitarian efforts and development projects in Iraq, the Senate has brought important and too-often underfunded peace building tactics into America's Iraq strategy.

Hopeful signs are starting to come from the administration as well. Just this week Secretary of State Rice travelled to the Middle East to help thaw the currently frozen Israeli-Palestinian peace process, which the Iraq Study Group correctly assessed as a destabilizing force throughout the Middle East. Any diplomatic efforts that seek to find solutions to the crisis in Iraq must also address the half-century long animosities between Palestine and Israel, said the Study Group. Another good sign on the diplomatic front is America's willingness to engage in talks with Syria and Iran about stabilizing Iraq. You should keep an eye out for further collaboration, because UNHCR will be hosting a conference next month on Iraq's humanitarian and refugee crises.

These positive changes don't happen spontaneously. They are the product of hard work by people like Dr. Lisa Schirch, interviewed by EPIC for our Ground Truth Project series, who helps our leaders to broaden their conceptions of how to achieve national security. Her organization--dubbed the "3D Security Initiative" for the three "d's" of defense, diplomacy, and development--seeks to promote the encorporation of all three of these tools into American foreign policy, not only to stabilize Iraq, but to also to reinforce US domestic security.

Secretary Rice: “Success in Iraq requires the positive support of Iraq's neighbors.”

BBC reports a sharp change in US-Iraq strategy: US leaders have agreed to sit down with Syria and Iran in regional talks to address the situation in Iraq:

"The administration of President George W Bush has been under pressure in Congress and from the findings of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to include Syria and Iran in dialogue to stabilise Iraq.

"Ms Rice said: 'Success in Iraq requires the positive support of Iraq's neighbors. This is also one of the key findings of the Iraq Study Group.'

"Leon Panetta, a member of the [Iraq Study Group], said the announcement was an important step towards bringing stability to Iraq."

Bear in mind that the first round of talks will only be an "ice-breaker," involving "non-ministerial level" representatives. Even still, the surprise announcement of the regional talks is a very heartening development to those seeking an end to the crisis in Iraq. Just a few months ago, whether the administration would enact any of the Iraq Study Group recommendations was a matter of concerned speculation. The recommendations calling for the US to engage Iraq's neighbors, which include Syria and Iran, seemed particularly likely to go unheeded. For the last three years, the US has been diplomatically estranged from Iran and Syria, never once engaging them in dialogue.

Luckily, the chorus of voices calling for diplomacy and other non-military solutions for Iraq is being heard in Washington. Let's hope our leaders continue to listen.

Iran in Iraq

I've always believed that to mitigate the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, the US must engage its neighbors, especially Iran which has considerable influence over the predominantly Shia Iraq. The US excuse has been that Iran is unwilling to negotiate with the US, that the US has no "leverage" when it comes to Iran. And so we have been on the offensive: accusing the Iranian government of supplying weapons to the militias, seizing Iranian operatives within Iraq, authorizing our military to kill Iranian operatives inside Iraq and so on.

Meanwhile President Ahmadinejad has had this to say: " Trying to weaken the Iraqi government is tantamount to "treason for the Iraqi people and Islamic nation."

Whether he is being sincere or not is a up to debate. The point is that no matter what differences the US and Iran may have, both have an overwhelming desire to prevent Iraq from sliding into an all-out civil war. Today the New York Times reports that Iran is going to go ahead with its plans to help stabilize Iraq regardless of the US' warnings not to "meddle."

"The ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, said Iran was prepared to offer Iraq government forces training, equipment and advisers for what he called 'the security fight.' In the economic area, Mr. Qumi said, Iran was ready to assume major responsibility for Iraq reconstruction, an area of failure on the part of the United States since American-led forces overthrew Saddam Hussein nearly four years ago."

These projects will certainly strengthen Iran's influence in Iraq, and so it is in America's best interest that it works together with Iran to temper this influence as best it can. In a related story, it was reported today that Iran recently received a letter from US officials that sought to ease the tension between the two countries. Hopefully this letter signifies a realization on the part of the US that whether we like it or not, Iran is going to be a factor in Iraq.

Iran's Diplomatic Overture

An interesting story on negotiations with Iraq has been making the rounds today and though the story itself first broke a while ago, I thought it would be good to review the story as quite few people (BBC news even!) missed it the first time round.

In the Spring of 2003, Iran sent the U.S. State Department a two-page fax outlining a proposal for a broad dialog between the two countries. The letter, a copy of which I've made available here, implied that everything was on the table, including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel, termination of support to Palestinian militant groups and "coordination of Iranian influence for activity supporting political stabilization and the establishment of democratic institutions and a nonreligious government."

While State Department officials seriously considered the offer, ultimately the administration decided to reject it. The administration believed that the Iranian government weak and preferred a policy of regime change to diplomacy.

This was obviously quite the opportunity and such a promising overture from Iran is quite unlikely to be repeated today. The fax was sent after the capture of Baghdad when everything appeared to be going right in Iraq for the U.S. and Iran did not yet have a functioning nuclear program nor the level of oil revenues it enjoys today. As a member of the administration's "axis of evil," Iran was sincerely frightened by the prospect of facing a force that had in three weeks routed an army that Iran failed to defeat in 8 years.

Today, Iran has the upper-hand. As I mentioned in an earlier post: its influence in the region continues to grow, the majority population of Iraq (Shia) have a close connection with Iran giving it considerable power within Iraq, its nuclear enrichment program continues undeterred and its President is certain that the 12th Imam will soon return- "a certitude that leaves little room for compromise" as Scott Peterson of the Christian Science Monitor explains.

Furthermore, as Trita Parsi, a Middle East expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, explains, the incident "strengthened the hands of those in Iran who believe the only way to compel the United States to talk or deal with Iran is not by sending peace offers but by being a nuisance."

Beyond the Surge

Instead of focusing on Bush's plan to send 20,000 or so more troops to Iraq as pretty much everyone else seems to be doing, I'd like to discuss the economic and regional dimensions of his "new" strategy.

Economic
In his speech President Bush pledged to aid the Iraqi government in creating more jobs with longer term sustainable programs. In fact, the Pentagon has already begun making good on this pledge having refurbished tens of factories all over Iraq to ready them for operation at the hands of Iraqis. Unfortunately, Bush continues to stress the importance of Provincial Reconstruction Teams or PRTs which have been criticized by the U.S. government’s own agencies as being largely ineffective.

Instead of doubling the number of PRTs, as Bush intends to do, more funds and resources ought to be directed towards the Community Action Program (CAP). CAP works to develop Iraq’s economy from the bottom-up, by employing local Iraqis in community-based initiatives devised by the Iraqis themselves. CAP has operations all over Iraq, including in its more volatile regions and, according to the U.S. government’s own auditors, has a 98% success rate.

This is where the money needs to go, but sadly Bush seems content throwing money at the proven failures that have been the Provincial Reconstruction Teams.

Regional
Whether we like it or not, Iran and Syria are an inextricable part of the Iraqi conflict. Beyond the levels of influence they hold over the vast majority of Iraqis, the two countries, Syria and Iran have a real interest in ensuring that the Iraqi civil war does not escalate to the point of an all-out regional conflict. Both countries, Syria more so, have already began suffering from the conflict in their capacity as hosts to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees. Their economies are being hit hard by the sudden influx of Iraqis, and it is unclear whether they will continue to accept refugees. (For more on the refugee crisis, I suggest you read our interview with Refugees International advocate, Sean Garcia). The United States must at least talk to Iran and Syria in order to coordinate a strategy that will address the needs of these refugees. Of course the U.S. has yet to accept responsibility for the crisis, much less recognize it so...

Here is what Bush had to say about Iran and Syria:

"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

The U.S. recently acted on this threat by storming an Iranian consular building in Iraq and detaining several employees. Fact of the matter is that regardless of whether the U.S. and Iran have a relationship at the state level, there are many low-level negotiations going between coalition forces and Iranians or at least those sympathetic to the Iranians. Acts such as this one will obviously jeopardize these much-needed negotiations.

After Baker-Hamilton: What to do in Iraq

One of the most important contributions of the Iraq Study Group was that it cleared the way for a more honest debate on Iraq. The International Crisis Group has joined the debate with its recently released report, "After Baker-Hamilton: What to do in Iraq." ICG's premise is that while the ISG report is important it is insufficiently radical if Iraq’s collapse and an unprecedented regional war are to be avoided. Here are the report's main recommendations:

1. A new forceful multilateral approach that puts real pressure on all Iraqi parties. The Baker-Hamilton report is right to advocate a broad International Support Group; it should comprise the five permanent Security Council members and Iraq’s six neighbours. But its purpose must not be to support the Iraqi government. It must support Iraq, which means pressing the government, along with all other constituencies, to make necessary compromises. Contrary to the Baker-Hamilton report’s suggestion, the government and security forces should not be treated as privileged allies to be bolstered. They are but one among many parties to the conflict and not innocent of responsibility for much of the trouble. It also means agreeing on rules of conduct and red-lines for third-party involvement. Sustained multilateral diplomacy, not a one-off international conference is needed.

2. A conference of all Iraqi and international stakeholders to forge a new political compact. This is not a military challenge in which one side needs to be strengthened and another defeated. It is a political challenge in which new consensual understandings need to be reached. A new, more equitable and inclusive national compact needs to be agreed upon by all relevant actors, including militias and insurgent groups, on issues such as federalism, resource allocation, de-Baathification, the scope of the amnesty and the timetable for a U.S. withdrawal. This can only be done if the International Support Group brings all of them to the negotiating table, and if its members steer their deliberations, deploying a mixture of carrots and sticks to influence those on whom they have particular leverage.

3. A new U.S. regional strategy, including engagement with Syria and Iran, end of efforts at regime change, revitalisation of the Arab-Israeli peace process and altered strategic goals. Mere engagement of Iraq’s neighbours will not do; Washington must clearly redefine its objectives in the region to enlist regional, and particularly Iranian and Syrian help. The goal is not to bargain with them, but to seek compromise agreement on an end-state for Iraq and the region that is no one’s first choice, but with which all can live.

This is a very important report as it completely eviscerates any illusions that Washington may still have about Iraq after the Baker-Hamilton report. And it goes beyond the ISG's recommendation to engage Iraq's neighbors by explaining how the U.S. can realistically achieve this. For more on this I would direct you to my recent entry on "Dealing with Iran" which highlights a paper written by Flynt Levrett of the New America Foundation.

Dealing with Iran

One of the key proposals of the Iraq Study Group's report was that the U.S. engage Syria and Iran over Iraq. Syria has come out saying it supports this proposal whole-heartedly, only because complementary to this recommendation is the notion that Israel give the Golan Heights back to Syria. Israel of course is not to happy with the idea of the U.S. undermining its negotiations with Syria, nor with the idea of handing back the Golan Heights in the first place.

Iran, unlike Syria, seemingly has no reason to negotiate with the U.S.; its influence in the region continues to grow, the majority population of Iraq (Shia) have a close connection with Iran giving Iran considerable power within Iraq, its nuclear enrichment program continues undeterred and its President is certain that the 12th Imam will soon return- "a certitude that leaves little room for compromise" as Scott Peterson of the Christian Science Monitor explains. Besides which, many Sunnis in Iraq will surely frown on increased Iranian intervention. (The same can of course be said of the Kurds in regard to Turkey and the Shia in regard to Jordan.)

Secretary Rice has repeatedly declared that the U.S. will not negotiate with Iran, arguing that the "compensation required by any deal might be too high." And that, ""If they have an interest in a stable Iraq, they [Iran and Syria] will do it anyway."

The U.S. doesn't want to engage Iran and vice-versa, so what's the point? Well Flynt Levrett, Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation argues that the United States must deal directly with Iran in order to prevent Iranian development of nuclear weapons and to resolve other political and security issues. He recommends a "grand bargain" that would include economic incentives and a guarantee that the U.S. not attack Iran. In exchange the U.S. would gain limits to Iran's nuclear activities and a termination of Iran's support for terrorism in Iraq. This deal could also provide the foundation for a establishing a regional security framework in the Persian Gulf.

He makes an interesting argument and I suggest those interested read the full report; however, I believe the points I make above are still valid. Even if the U.S. does for some reason extend its arm to Iran, who is to say that Iran will reciprocate. Everything seems to be going Iran's way as far as Iran is concerned anyway. Also, when one is pursuing a course of action based on one's messianic beliefs, it seems unlikely that logic will hold much sway.

What do you think? First off, should the U.S. engage Iran over Iraq and secondly how successful do you think said negotiations would be? Should Iraq's neighbors even be involved in the peace process?

Iraq Study Group Releases Report...Will Bush Listen?

After 9 months of deliberation the Iraq Study Group finally released its report today. You can view the full text here.

The report's makes 2 fundamental recommendations: Change the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq to allow combat forces to leave the country responsibly and, adopt a new regional diplomatic approach. The keyword in the former recommendation is "responsibly."

A quick withdrawal from Iraq would almost certainly result in an all-out civil war that could destabilize the entire region. Instead the report suggests that combat troop remain in Iraq until early 2008 after which only a smaller force responsible for training, rapid-response operations and advising would remain. According to a New York Times article printed yesterday, US troops in Iraq have already began shifting to advisory roles. Unfortunately, as incidents such as this demonstrate, it could take a while before the Iraqi army will be ready to secure their country without the combat support of US troops. Whether approximately two years will be enough time is questionable; however, there is no question that if there is any chance for the US to withdraw combat forces responsibly in this time-frame, Iraq's neighbors must be included.

As Baker, one of the chairmen of the Group explained in today's press conference:

"Both Iran and Syria have a lot of influence... Iran has the single greatest influence in Iraq today. You can't solve these problems without talking to them. You cannot look at Iraq and treat it as separate in the region... For 40 years, we talked to the USSR when they wanted to wipe us from the face of the earth."

These countries are inextricably tied to the conflict in Iraq, and as such any meaningful peace in Iraq will need to involve them. Unfortunately, Bush has repeatedly rejected calls to engaged Syria and Iran, and as long as Cheney and Rove have his ear, this will likely continue to be the case. There may be some hope, however, with the nomination of Robert Gates to the position of Defense Secretary: Gates has long been a proponent of engaging Iran in a dialog. There is of course the possibility that Gates may change his position on the matter as soon as he takes office, after all Cheney also supported talks with Iran before he came to office. I'll give Gates the benefit of the doubt here considering his admission yesterday that the US, contrary to what Bush has said in the past, is in fact losing the war in Iraq- but only time will tell. Either way there is still no telling as to whether Bush would even listen to Gates should he recommend regional diplomacy.

Though Bush originally embraced the Iraq Study Group, as it became clear that the group's recommendations would diverge from White House policy, Bush been downplaying the significance of this report. The report has now become simply one of many others:

"It's very hard for me to, you know, prejudice one report over another," Bush said in an interview Monday with Fox News Channel. "They're all important."

Except this one was drafted by a bipartisan group over the course of nine months and enjoys the support of much of Congress.

Just last week, Bush told PM Maliki that "this business [referring to leaks from ISG report] about graceful exit just simply has no realism to it." It has been reported that Bush is in favor of embedding US troops with the Iraqi army, however, as the report makes clear, the recommendations are offered as a comprehensive approach- one cannot simply pick and choose which ones to apply if one hopes to be successful in Iraq. Then there is the other study group which Bush commissioned in mid-November which is almost certain to recommend Bush stay the course in terms of Iraq policy. This group is due to release the report fairly soon as well, though I haven't heard much since the group's inception. So all in all it seems unlikely that Bush will enact the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, not willingly anyway.

More on this later.