A change of direction in Iraq?
(From The Japan Times December 9 issue)

「イラク研究グループ」の報告書

    The Iraq Study Group was established in March 2006 at the urging of several members of Congress to assess the situation in Iraq, evaluate U.S. policy and come up with recommendations. The 10-person bipartisan panel was evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans and was cochaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and Mr. Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana. It conducted hearings and meetings with 171 people, drew on the work of several expert groups, met with President Bush and key members of his national security team several times, and even visited Iraq. That work yielded a 142-page report, released Dec. 6 (in Washington), that included 79 specific and unanimous recommendations.

    The ISG begins with a blunt warning: "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating." A continued slide could result in the collapse of the Baghdad government, a humanitarian catastrophe, Sunni-Shiite clashes throughout the region, enhanced status for al-Qaida and greater damage to the U.S. global standing.

    That alone is an important admission, given that the U.S. government has maintained that much if not most of the country is stable, the violence is being contained and persistence is the solution to problems currently encountered in Iraq. In a press conference held to coincide with the release of the report, Mr. Baker bluntly rejected that approach, saying "We do not recommend a stay-the-course solution. In our opinion, that is no longer viable."

    The ISG's suggestions constitute a radical shift in U.S. policy. First, the group endorses active diplomacy that "includes every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq's neighbors." In other words, Washington must begin to talk to Iran and Syria, a step that Mr. Bush has been loath to take. In addition, the ISG calls on the U.S. to deal "directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict . . . There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts." This, too, is a radical departure for a U.S. administration that has preferred a hands-off approach to this problem.

    Second, the U.S. must adjust its role to let Iraqis take more control of their destiny. This calls for increasing the U.S. presence within Iraqi Army units while cutting the troop presence overall, with virtually all combat units withdrawn from the country by early 2008. Critically, the United States must not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq. The ISG does not endorse a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, but the trend and end state are clear.

    As part of this process, the Iraqi government must step up and win the confidence of all its citizens. The report calls for Baghdad to embrace benchmarks on national reconciliation, security and governance. U.S. support should be contingent on substantial progress toward the achievement of those objectives.

    All these suggestions make sense. And there are many that the U.S. administration would endorse on its own. As a package, however, they represent an abrupt shift in U.S. policy, and Mr. Bush has been reluctant to take any step that looks like he is conceding a mistake. Only this month he promised Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that the U.S. commitment to Iraq would be undiminished until victory is achieved. While Mr. Bush has said that he takes the ISG's work seriously, he has also made it clear that he does not feel bound by its recommendations. He is considering the panel's report along with other studies by the National Security Council and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That is a president's prerogative, but it raises questions about the purpose of this entire exercise. Moreover, the ISG has cautioned that their suggestions are a package and must be taken as a whole.

    In a letter accompanying the report, the cochairs concede that there is no magic formula that can solve the problems in Iraq. But, they argue, there are steps that can be taken to improve the situation and protect U.S. interests. Of course, any progress is contingent on the recognition that the present situation is unsustainable and changing direction is less of a defeat than is worsening chaos in Iraq. The ISG's work may be done, but the real work has yet to begin.

The Japan Times Weekly: December 16, 2006
(C) All rights reserved

    ベーカー元国務長官、ハミルトン元上院議員を共同議長として10人のメンバー（民主党、共和党半々）からなる今年3月に創設されたISGは、171人の関係者と会見、ブッシュ大統領、国家安全保障会議のメンバーと会談し、イラクを視察した。

    報告書は、イラク情勢がさらに悪化すれば、政権崩壊、人道上の危機、イスラム教シーア派・スンニ派の紛争激化、アルカイダの勢力拡大、米国の国際的威信の低下などを予想している。

    報告書はまず、イラクをめぐる新しい外交活動の一環として、イラン、シリアと接触を進める必要があるとしている。また、アラブ・イスラエル和平工作に直接関与することを求めている。

    次に、報告書はイラクの駐留米軍全体を縮小しながら、イラク軍に対する訓練を強化し、戦闘部隊を08年初めまでに撤退させるよう求めている。米軍全体については撤退時期を明示していないが、将来の撤退の方向性は明白だ。

    諮問は米政策の転換を求めているが、ブッシュ大統領は自らの誤りを認めるような方策は取ろうとしない。大統領は、報告書の内容を真剣に検討する一方、諮問には拘束されないとして、国家安全保障会議、統合参謀本部の提案も検討するという。ISGは、諮問は部分的でなく、一括して検討されねばならぬとしている。

    報告書に添付した書簡で、ISGの共同議長は、イラク問題解決の万能薬はないが、状況を改善して米国の国益を守る手段はあるとしている。

    問題の解決には、イラク政策の転換は情勢の悪化よりもましということを認識せねばならない。ISGは報告書を発表したが、イラクの問題解決の仕事はこれからだ。