The Daily Background

The New York Times today reports that the Iraq Study Group will recommend US troops be “gradually pulled back” out of Iraq. They’re not calling it withdrawal persay, and they’re not going to set any deadlines or timetables, but they are saying that US troops (or at least “combat troops”) need to get out. And it’s unanimous among the 10 members (5 Dems, 5 Republicans). WHen this becomes public (NYT says Bush will be briefed on it next week), it will surely make headlines. “Iraq Study Group calls for pullout” and so forth. NYT says:

It is a compromise between distinct paths that the group has debated since March, avoiding a specific timetable, which has been opposed by Mr. Bush, but making it clear that the American troop commitment should not be open-ended. The recommendations of the group, formed at the request of members of Congress, are nonbinding.

[…]
The report leaves unstated whether the 15 combat brigades that are the bulk of American fighting forces in Iraq would be brought home, or simply pulled back to bases in Iraq or in neighboring countries. (A brigade typically consists of 3,000 to 5,000 troops.) From those bases, they would still be responsible for protecting a substantial number of American troops who would remain in Iraq, including 70,000 or more American trainers, logistics experts and members of a rapid reaction force.

Okay, so it seems kind of vague on these last points. But at least they are going to call for pulling out of Iraq. According to the NYT, “the bulk of the report” discusses why the US should have direct negotiations and diplomatic contact with Syria and Iran. Another thing President Bush has been steadfastly against.

“I think everyone felt good about where we ended up,” one person involved in the commission’s debates said after the group ended its meeting. “It is neither ‘cut and run’ nor ‘stay the course.’ ”

“Those who favor immediate withdrawal will not like it,” he said, but it also “deviates significantly from the president’s strategy.”

Somehow I doubt that’s how this is going to be portrayed. There is no real vindication of the President’s strategy in the upcoming report, it seems. It is all about “changing the course” (using actual diplomacy with Iran, drawing US troops out), and suggests things that President Bush is wholly opposed to. Note that the NYT does however say:

Mr. Baker cited what Mr. Bush had also called a danger: that any firm deadline would be an invitation to insurgents and sectarian groups to bide their time until the last American troops were withdrawn, then seek to overthrow the government. But Democrats on the commission also suspected that Mr. Baker was reluctant to embarrass the president by embracing a strategy Mr. Bush had repeatedly rejected.

At this point though, it doesn’t even matter that they won’t be setting a deadline for withdrawal. What matters is that they are going to call for withdrawal. Complete opposite of what the President wants. Sure, the Administration will try to spin it, but they won’t have much luck. This whole thing is going to be an embarrassment, considering how many times the President has said that he eagerly awaits hearing their final report on Iraq.

Update: I understand Wednesday December 6th is the day Bush will be given the ISG report.

Filed under: Iraq Related, Z-TDB Blog