Going forward in Iraq
December 7, 2006| By Nathaniel Ward
Yesterday, the Iraq Study Group released its much-anticipated report on America’s involvement in Iraq. While the report breaks little new ground, it helps clarify the debate on how to prevail in Iraq.
“Its recommendations comprise a sensible and realistic way forward in Iraq, with one major exception,” Heritage experts James Phillips and James Carafano explain. “Drawing Syria and Iran into efforts to stabilize Iraq would accomplish little at great expense or even backfire, undermining stability.”
Phillips and Carafano identify several recommendations the Baker-Hamilton Commission got right:
- Put security and stability first
- Make the training of the Iraqi army and police a higher priority
- Reject partition
- Reject an immediate withdrawal
- Reject a timetable for withdrawal
The report “advocates policies that are compatible with President Bush’s definition of success,” Phillips and Carafano continue. That means “an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.”
The ISG report recognizes that the United States must remain actively engaged in Iraq to provide its fledgling government the best opportunity to avert civil war, humanitarian crisis, regional instability, and creation of a breeding ground for global terrorists. This report provides an opportunity for all sides of the political spectrum to acknowledge that there are no easy answers in Iraq. Iraq policy often boils down to a choice of lesser evils. As bad as things are now, the situation could rapidly worsen. A sudden withdrawal would lead to the worst-case scenario. The best course is for America to finish the job it started: helping Iraqis secure the future of Iraq.
Unfortunately, the commission went terribly awry by suggesting that Iran and Syria play a greater role in securing Iraq. “Iran and Syria have been very much part of the problem in Iraq and cannot be trusted to be part of a genuine solution,” Phillips and Carafano argue. Not only that, but the two nations would likely extract concessions from the United States and its allies in exchange for cooperation—which may never materialize.
Instead, “the U.S. should seek to mobilize greater international support for Iraq’s young government from the European Union, Russia, China, Japan, and Middle Eastern governments that genuinely support progress in Iraq and have an interest in stabilizing Iraq and containing Iran, such as Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.”
Nathaniel Ward is the Editor of MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation.
