• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Baker Report

The word victory appears three times in the document. On each occasion, they are speaking of a victory for al Qaeda.
 
I'm having a bit of (computer) trouble with it and have only gone through the Executive Summary, but they waffle on troop levels.

At first it seems as if they are saying troop levels must be increased, but an equally valid interpretation is that they are saying only to increase the number of troops imbedded in Iraqi units.

Does the body of it clarify this?
 
At first it seems as if they are saying troop levels must be increased, but an equally valid interpretation is that they are saying only to increase the number of troops imbedded in Iraqi units.

pp 70-71

The Iraqi government should accelerate the urgently needed national reconciliation program to which it has already committed. And it should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army brigades. As the Iraqi Army increases in size and capability, the Iraqi government should be able to take real responsibility
for governance.

While this process is under way, and to facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units. As these actions proceed, we could begin to move combat forces out of Iraq. The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi
army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations. We should continue to maintain support forces, rapid-reaction forces, special operations forces, intelligence units, search-and-rescue units, and force protection units.

While the size and composition of the Iraqi Army is ultimately a matter for the Iraqi government to determine, we should be firm on the urgent near-term need for significant additional trained Army brigades, since this is the key to Iraqis taking over full responsibility for their own security, which they want to do and which we need them to do. It is clear that they will still need security assistance from the United States for some time to come as they work to achieve political and security changes.

One of the most important elements of our support would be the imbedding of substantially more U.S. military personnel in all Iraqi Army battalions and brigades, as well as within Iraqi companies. U.S. personnel would provide advice, combat assistance, and staff assistance. The training of Iraqi
units by the United States has improved and should continue for the coming year. In addition to this training, Iraqi combat units need supervised on-the-job training as they move to field operations. This on-the-job training could be best done by imbedding more U.S. military personnel in Iraqi deployed
units. The number of imbedded personnel would be based on the recommendation of our military commanders in Iraq, but it should be large enough to accelerate the development of a real combat capability in Iraqi Army units. Such a mission could involve 10,000 to 20,000 American troops instead of the 3,000 to 4,000 now in this role. This increase in imbedded troops could be carried out without an aggregate increase over time in the total number of troops in Iraq by making a corresponding decrease in troops assigned to U.S. combat brigades.
 
Thanks, Cylinder.

So they're saying to keep the troop numbers static for now, but change the mission of those already there. This will lead to the ability at an undetermined time to begin a gradual withdrawal.
 
Sounds like they are recommending "removing the training wheels," (to quote...me).
 
I like what the report had to say about the "Stay the Course" option:

Page 38
2. Staying the Course

Current U.S. policy is not working, as the level of violence in Iraq is rising and the government is not advancing national reconciliation. Making no changes in policy would simply delay the day of reckoning at a high cost. Nearly 100 Americans are dying every month. The United States is spending $2 billion a week. Our ability to respond to other international crises is constrained. A majority of the American people are soured on the war. This level of expense is not sustainable over an extended period, especially when progress is not being made. The longer the United States remains in Iraq without progress, the more resentment will grow among Iraqis who believe they are subjects of a repressive American occupation. As one U.S. official said to us, “Our leaving would make it worse. . . . The current approach without modification will not make it better.”

It sure is a good thing for Bush that a few weeks ago someone on the ISG was kind enough to let him know what the "Stay the course" Iraq rhetoric would actually entail.
 
I'm having a bit of (computer) trouble with it and have only gone through the Executive Summary, but they waffle on troop levels.

I had trouble too. I think it is because it is a PDF file and the server for the document is bogged down. I just left my computer for twenty minutes or so and it had completely loaded. The PDF reader seems to be able to grab control of your computer and keep it if it isn't happy.

I have just made it through the executive summary and a little bit more, but one thing that comes to mind immediately is that it comes across as a huge indictment of Bushco's happy talk. A defense of Bushco is that some lying about the situation in war time is probably justified as a means of improving morale and discouraging the enemy. A question here is whether the lying was so pervasive and institutionalized that it got in the way of objective analysis and it got in the way of appropriate actions to deal with the situation.
 
Even assuming that in this report there are some useful ideas for salvaging the situation in Iraq...the problem is that the person who has to execute is incompetent. Expecting this President to hear advice he doesn't want to hear is tough enough, but he has also proven that he can't manage the situation. Again, assuming there is anything valuable here, hoping that Bush can make the changes necessary to salvage the situation is a litlle like giving a drunk driver back the keys to his car and asking him to disengage the car from the tree he smashed it into.

Maybe the word "victory" wasn't in the report in any meaningful way because it for this mission it was a slogan an never a realistic plan.
 
Recall that the President has said that he doesn't care if the only ones who think they should maintain the course is him and his dog, he is going to do it.

A guy on Rachel Maddow says last night, it's not even clear anymore if the dog still agrees.
 

Back
Top Bottom