A plan for Iraq at last

Wednesday, a bipartisan commission called the Iraq Study Group sent a report to President Bush that rebuked his current strategy for handling the war in Iraq and proposed a radically different approach to the war. It is easy to dismiss this report as another hollow assault on the handling of what is a very complicated situation in the Middle East, but I believe this report is much different from previous attempts to publicly disagree with the President’s Iraq policies because it lays out a comprehensive, specific plan of action.

Another characteristic that sets this report apart is the fact that it was created by a commission of five Republicans and five Democrats, indicating that the blindly divisive partisanship that has marked the debate over the Iraq War had been set aside. Furthermore, the report uses elements of plans that have been introduced from both sides of the aisle, including Senator Carl Levin’s proposal of a gradual, phased withdrawal with General John Abizaid’s idea of embedding more U.S. troops with Iraqi units.

The report divides its solution into two aspects of Iraq’s situation: the internal, dealing with government-building and increasing national security, and external, involving Iraq’s neighbors and the international community.

With regards to internal Iraqi affairs, the report suggests that the U.S. set certain “milestones” to which the Iraqi government will have to strive for in order to continue receiving U.S. military and economic support. Using these incentives makes sense in order to entice the Iraqi government into getting things done. President Bush’s current promise of not leaving until “the mission is accomplished” provides no reason for Iraq’s government to work to solve their security problems. Continuing to not use a deadline system like this is like assigning homework with no due date: you might as well not assign it at all.

As Iraq completes the milestones, more and more U.S. troops will be gradually pulled out of Iraq and an increasing number would be embedded with the Iraqi army, serving as advisors and assisting in combat operations. Doing this will ensure the Iraqi army’s smooth transition into taking responsibility for national security while at the same time withdrawing as many American brigades as possible. The report’s internal strategy is the perfect compromise between extremes: troops will be pulled out of the country gradually and according to a timetable, but the Iraqi government will not be left unprepared to fend for itself.

External to Iraq, the report proposes that convincing Iran and Syria to assist Iraq by controlling the flow of arms and insurgents into the country. While the thought of working with Iran has been dismissed lately because of its nuclear program and general diplomatic hostility, the report is dead on about bringing them in to aid in Iraq’s reconstruction. While it is a fundamentalist state, unlike Iraq it is a functioning state. Having dealt with many of the same ethnic and religious conflicts that Iraq has, it has a better understanding of the values and concerns of the citizens of Iraq.

Iran is also the home of many Shiite clerics who are currently encouraging much of the sectarian violence in Iraq. If the tables were turned and Iran had a stake in Iraq’s stability, they would be forced to use their power to stabilize the country.

Opponents of the external plan say that Iran and Syria will demand concessions and incentives from the U.S. in order for them to cooperate. If fact, knowing how badly we need them, they would probably demand a lot. However, obtaining the help of these two influential Arab countries will take a lot of pressure off of the U.S. and start building a trust between Iraq and its neighbors, which will be critical for the nation down the road.

This report is a pivotal document for the direction of the war in Iraq. Those in opposition to the war have loudly proclaimed that the current strategy being used in the country is not working and should be changed. And until now, only the flaws in the current strategy have been championed, without a remotely feasible alternative proposed. With the publication of this report, a fundamentally new plan, based on research and expert testimony, has been spelled out in detail, thus clearing the way for very real and promising change to occur in this difficult situation.