an afternoon treat

Leading up to the James Baker/Lee Hamilton–led Iraq Study Group’s Wednesday briefing with President Bush, the media was abuzz speculating about both the contents of the report and how the administration might react. On the former, articles suggesting that the commission would recommend engaging in talks with Syria and Iran (Financial Times), re-prioritizing negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians (Time), and reassigning troops to a training role in advance of their withdrawal (Time,Wall Street Journal,New York Times) turned out to be accurate.

Baker did mention that a temporary increase in troop levels may be necessary, echoing the growing chorus—led by Senator John McCain and George Will—that is calling for more troops on the ground. The Wall Street Journal reported on December 4 that senior military officials inside the Pentagon, particularly a small study group reporting to General Peter Pace, will be pushing for increased troop levels in a final attempt to stabilize Iraq.

The president spent the weeks leading up to the report’s release sending mixed messages and ultimately distancing himself from certain recommendations. National Security Advisor Steven Hadley said on Meet the Press that the president plans “significant changes” to his strategy in Iraq that he will implement after hearing recommendations from both the Iraq Study Group and General Pace. Additionally, political analysts have pointed to Bush’s selection of Robert Gates to replace Defense Secretary Rumsfeld as evidence that the “realists” have again found favor among Republicans. However, Hadley also made clear that “the way forward” (which is the subtitle of the report) would not include a withdrawal of troops “regardless of what was happening on the ground,” directly contradicting the Iraq Study Group’s anticipated recommendation to link troop withdrawal to security (or lack there of).

President Bush offered his first official comments on the bipartisan commission during a press conference with Prime Minister al-Maliki, saying, “there’s a lot of speculation that these reports in Washington mean there’s going to be some kind of graceful exit out of Iraq. We’re going to stay in Iraq to get the job done, so long as the government wants us there.” Senior administration officials have been hinting that the president’s plan includes an eventual troop withdrawal, but firmly rejects any ultimatums or hard timelines. Wednesday, the president said he would take the Iraq Study Group’s finding “very seriously” and act on them “in a timely fashion,” but refused to specifically align himself with its recommendations.

So what “major adjustments” in the Iraq strategy will President Bush put forward? The debate mostly has functioned along a single axis: troop levels, a central point addressed by the Baker/Hamilton commission and General Pace’s working group. This narrow debate largely ignores the fact that, as Anthony Cordesman of Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) succinctly put it, “adding more boots on the ground is pointless” without “the right brains above them.” Reaching out to other players in the region would constitute the type of strategic overhaul that is needed, but the president has constrained his options by asserting repeatedly that negotiating with “rogue states” such as Iran and Syria is out of the question.

After his Wednesday briefing, he predictably extended a gracious thank you to James Baker and Lee Hamilton for leading the bipartisan group and promised to consider their recommendations. Yet, he is ultimately left with few options, none of which are particularly compelling or novel. Having preemptively rejected the Iraq Study Group’s central recommendations of troop withdrawal and renewed diplomacy, it will require a presidential about face to adopt its advice. Meanwhile, the war’s shrinking popularity among Americans renders increasing troop levels unviable. Even Republicans will shy away from escalation as they set their eyes upon regaining power in 2008. In short, Bush’s “way forward” probably won’t look very new.

As Time magazine’s cover story points out, Bush has been known to abruptly change courses—albeit months or years after he should have—and an old, trusted friend like Gates might be able right the ship. However, in this instance, the “Decider” does not have the luxury of time. As escalating sectarian violence bleeds into civil war, it may not matter if he makes the right choice after years of making the wrong ones. Meanwhile, members of the media, who have given the Bush administration and Congress some political breathing room in anticipation of the report, should demand prompt answers to the hardest question: What now, Mr. President?