The Baker-Hamilton report triggers debate in Congress, writes David Dumke from Washington The unveiling of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report last week immediately triggered debate at the White House and in the halls of Congress. In wake of a congressional election lost by Republicans largely over the deplorable situation in Iraq, the report -- commonly known as Baker- Hamilton -- is the first volley in what promises to be an impassioned fight between the White House and the newly-elected democratically-controlled congress. Reactions to the ISG report were mixed. The White House tepidly welcomed the ISG's recommendations, notably avoiding embracing or denouncing any of the 79 recommendations proffered by the 10-member bipartisan commission of senior American statesman. In Congress, meanwhile, four major fault lines were quickly established: congressional Democrats against the Bush Administration; stalwart supporters of Israel against the ISG; individual lawmakers supporting their own plans for various reasons; and, staunch war supporters, mostly Republicans, against the ISG and, in certain cases, against the White House. Baker-Hamilton offers a number of recommendations for US policymakers desperately in need of fresh ideas, preferably without paying a steep political price. What is universally known, and shaped the ISG approach, is the knowledge that the status quo in Iraq and the Middle East is unacceptable. The ISG report was crafted in a holistic manner, meaning that it attempts to provide not only a framework for the isolated issue of Iraq, but a broader regional approach. It calls for a number of initiatives, chiefly: renewed, rigorous diplomacy aimed at settling the Arab-Israeli conflict; stabilising the increasingly chaotic political impasse in Lebanon; lifting international isolation for Syria and Iran; and providing a framework which may enable the US to disengage from Iraq. Democratic congressional leaders, who won power in the November elections, thanks to the Iraq issue, quickly embraced Baker-Hamilton. With Democrats united only in the need to alter course in Iraq, not in how to do so, the report provides a blueprint for change. By embracing the report -- not endorsing specific recommendations -- congressional Democrats put pressure on the White House. It is up to the White House to oppose the plan, with the full knowledge that if they do so, the American public will demand that they offer a credible alternative. Israel's most passionate congressional supporters predictably chafed at the notion that the Israeli-Palestinian issue is connected to Iraq. "There is no basis to conclude that a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian problem is central to resolving Iraq. These two issues, both difficult to resolve, must not be artificially conflated," suggested Representative Tom Lantos (Democrat-California), the incoming chairman of the House International Relations Committee. "The report embraces the idea that peace between Arabs and Israelis is a necessary element of success in Iraq...the linkage the ISG report makes between this issue and the violence in Iraq seems tenuous at best," noted Senator John McCain (Arizona), a contender for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. Many members of Congress, often from the same circles, downplayed the importance of dialog with Syria and Iran. In recent years, in fact, despite the situation in Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Iraq, Congress has fully cooperated with Secretary of State Condolezza Rice to isolate Damascus and Tehran. "We must be both cautious and realistic about what Iranian and Syrian participation is likely to achieve...if the price of their cooperation is an easing of pressure on Tehran over its nuclear ambitions, or on Damascus over the Syrian role in Lebanon, then that price is too high," noted McCain. Reaction from rank-and-file members of Congress, who are heavily influenced by Israel and the American Israel Political Affairs Committee, is not immediately known. But the most vocal have opted to look at Iraq through blinders. It is true that Iraqi militiamen are not fighting US forces because of Israel. But this fails to acknowledge that the long-term solution in Iraq demands the involvement of the Arab world, which will be more inclined to assist with Baghdad if the US helps with Palestine. As Baker noted in a recent interview, the road to Baghdad lies likely through Jerusalem. Other noteworthy members of Congress, such as Senator Joe Biden (Democrat-Delaware), found fault with the ISG report for personal, political, or ideological reasons. Biden, for example, offered a plan earlier this year to "federalise" Iraq -- essentially creating three separate, ethnic-based states within Iraq's borders. "The report perpetuates one of the Bush administration's most fundamental mistakes: the belief that a political settlement can be based solely on building up a strong central government ... I offered a detailed plan that would give each of Iraq's main groups incentives to pursue their interests peacefully," penned Biden, another 2008 presidential contender, in a USA-Today opinion-editorial. Biden was clearly stung when James Baker, the commission's co-chairman, specifically rejected his plan in a press conference. Finally, the ISG report, coupled with Bush's decision to dump Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, deeply angered a sizable faction of hawkish Republicans. These Republicans, who have steadfastly supported Bush's Iraq policy, are feeling abandoned. Senator Rick Santorum (Pennsylvania), who lost his reelection campaign largely because of Iraq, went so far as to oppose the nomination of Robert Gates (replacing Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary). Senator Gordon Smith (Oregon), publicly denounced the Bush Administration, claiming he had been lied to over Iraq. Given the immediate feedback in Washington, it would be easy to write the ISG off as a failure -- like other recent plans such as the Road Map or the Mitchell Commission plan. But while the plan will almost certainly not be adopted, it has already succeeded in altering the terms of debate in Washington.
