posted October 18, 2006 12:30 AM            

· Talks with Iran and Syria seen as way to end chaos
· Report leaked before crucial November polls

Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday October 18, 2006

Guardian

A radical change in US policy over Iraq after the November elections appeared increasingly likely yesterday after reports that a bipartisan commission headed by a Bush family confidant will recommend an approach to Iran and Syria for help or a withdrawal to bases outside Iraq.
The Iraq Study Group is chaired by James Baker, who was the first President Bush's secretary of state. It is not due to deliver its findings until after the congressional elections on November 7 because of their potentially explosive political impact, but the panel's proceedings have been leaked to the press.

In recent interviews, Mr Baker said the group has taken no firm decisions but made it clear that the current US strategy was no longer an option. "There'll probably be some things in our report that the administration might not like," Mr Baker predicted in a TV interview. He said: "Our commission believes there are alternatives between the stated alternatives, the ones that are out there in the political debate of 'stay the course' and 'cut and run'."

He made it clear he believed there should be approaches to Iraq's neighbours, including those the White House has accused of fomenting the insurgency. "I believe in talking to your enemies," he said. "Neither the Syrians nor the Iranians want a chaotic Iraq ... so maybe there is some potential for getting something other than opposition from those countries."

In a BBC interview yesterday, the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, expressed support for such a move, saying it would "be the beginning of the end of terrorism".

Mr Baker has also suggested that the US might have to give up its long-term war aim of democracy across the Middle East. Instead he suggested that the US define success as achieving "representative government, not necessarily democracy".

According to leaks published first in the New York Sun and then in the Los Angeles Times, the Iraq Study Group, which has consulted 150 outside experts including Syrian and Iranian representatives, is focusing on two broad options.

One is entitled "Stability First" and it would involve focusing the military effort on pacifying Baghdad while attempting to draw some insurgent groups into the political process and opening talks with Syria and Iran.

The second has been called "Redeploy and Contain", pulling US troops back to bases outside Iraq and conducting military operations from there in support of Iraqi government forces.

However they were spun, both would represent a measure of defeat for President Bush, but with a American death toll fast approaching 3,000, the new report may reflect a realisation he has no choice.

posted October 18, 2006 07:51 PM              

"well as senior councilor to the carlyle group*....he's who i take my orders from...."

posted October 19, 2006 01:48 AM              

On James Baker:

He says the government shouldn't overreact to corporate scandals. He watched the September 11 attacks at the Ritz-Carlton with the Bin Laden family. He's defending the Saudi's against a trillion-dollar lawsuit brought forth by the September 11 families. He led the campaigns of the last four Republican presidents. Now he's been chosen as Bush's personal envoy in charge of restructuring Iraq's $132 billion in debt. Some say he's the most powerful lawyer in the world. He may be one of the busiest. Who is he?

Connecting the Dots:

He's the Senior Counsel for The Carlyle Group, a company that invests pension funds in defense and telecommunications companies around the world. The Carlyle Group is the nation's 10th largest defense contractor, with extensive ties to Enron, Global Crossing, Arthur Andersen, the Saudi Royal Family, and the Bin Ladens.

Through his law firm, Baker & Botts, he is also working to assist American oil companies in the Caspian Region. This work right now involves a pipeline to be built through Afghanistan, a pipeline that Texas oil companies were negotiating with the Taliban to build before 9-11.

Is this the same James A. Baker working for the Department of Justice as the Counsel for Intelligence Policy at the time of the September 11 attacks? "The Office serves as adviser to the Attorney General and various client agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Defense and State Departments, concerning questions of law, regulation, and guidelines as well as the legality of domestic and overseas intelligence operations." www.usdoj.gov/oipr/

The judge who decided not to freeze the assests of Enron executives in January later recused herself from the case because she was a former employee of Baker & Botts, because of her ties to George Bush and the fact that she had been an Enron stockholder.

How will President George W. Bush personally make millions (if not billions) from the War on Terror and Iraq? The old fashioned way. He'll inherit it.

Meet The Carlyle Group

Former World Leaders and Washington Insiders Making Billions in the War on Terrorism

Bush Carlucci Baker Darman Ramos Major

We know who George Bush senior and James Baker are. Here are the rest of the board members of the Carlyle Group:

Carlucci is the former Sec. of Defense and Deputy Director of the CIA

Darman was White House Budget Director in the Bush and Clinton administrations

Ramos is the former President of the Philippines

Major is the former Bristish Prime Minister

Baker & Botts was Enron's counsel when they merged with Enron Power and Pipeline in 1997.

Robert W. Jordan, another founding member, is now the Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

Baker & Botts is currently defending the CEO of Rite-Aid, indicted for conspiracy and fraud.

Two of Baker and Botts's specialties are Corporate Crisis and White Collar Criminal Defense

Doesn't seem like world peace would be very profitable for any of The Carlyle Group.

posted October 24, 2006 06:05 PM            

Baker signals U.S. exit from Iraq
Oct. 24, 2006. 01:00 AM
RICHARD GWYN

It has been reported — and, significantly, has not been denied — that James Baker, the former U.S. secretary of state to Ronald Reagan who now heads the Iraq Study Group charged with proposing policy changes to the president, has called the situation in Iraq "a helluva mess."

This shows that Baker has lost none of his sharpness.

The one criticism that could be made is that his comment is too optimistic.

The situation in Iraq is worse than "a helluva mess." It is an appalling, irredeemable mess.

For the United States there is now just one strategy option left: how and when to get out.

It would be unreasonable to expect Baker to say this. But in his customarily deft way, he has been signalling it.

Last week, Baker showed up on the TV interview shows. He emphasized that the Study Group has, as yet, made no decisions.

Then he said something interesting. This was that there were possibilities in-between the extreme alternatives of "stay the course" (which is President George Bush's policy) or "bug out," as being demanded by anti-war critics.

One possibility, Baker remarked, might be to resort to the use of "benchmarks," that is, to announce a schedule of troop withdrawals that would be implemented in lockstep with the progressive takeover of security by the Iraqi government.

But, even if the Iraqi government fails to meet its commitments, these withdrawals would still be implemented.

In official parlance, this technique is known as a "forcing mechanism."

The problem with this solution is not that it is almost indistinguishable from political blackmail; the problem is that it is virtually certain to fail.

The Iraqi government just does not have the credibility, the nerve, or the will to take such decisive action.

And the Iraqi armed forces haven't the capacity to take over significant security responsibilities: The police and army are thoroughly infiltrated by the insurgents and religious militia and are feared and loathed by the public.

Baker is far too savvy not to know this. So why is he tossing out the thought?

Politics, of course. The Republicans face serious losses in the mid-term elections. Any hint that they might have a plan to get out of Iraq while holding onto some honour might save them from a rout.

Post-election, an entirely new factor enters the equation.

In a certain way, Bush is to Iraq as Richard Nixon was to China. Just as only Nixon could have got away with extending diplomatic recognition to Communist China, so is Bush best-placed to preside over a "bug-out" — never so called, of course — from Iraq.

It will be excruciatingly difficult to get Bush to do this. Yet the "benchmarks" solution might make it possible for him to do it.

That it won't work is neither here nor there. It will enable Bush to claim that he's leaving on his own timetable rather than that of the insurgents.

Most significant, it will enable Bush to blame his pullout on the failure of the Iraqi government to meet its targets. Again, the fact that the government cannot meet these targets is neither here nor there.

This, or something close to it, is going to happen once the mid-term elections are safely over, I predict.

I base the prediction on two factors. While Bush doesn't need advice on how to get out of Iraq (he has lots of experts to do that), Baker is exactly the kind of person who can provide him with a credible cover for getting out.

The other factor is the latest public opinion poll. Not the one that shows that two-thirds of Americans now have no faith in Bush's handling of Iraq; that merely continues a pre-existing trend.

Rather, the poll just completed in the South in which only 11 per cent of Southerners say they still feel any "pride" in the war.

It is in the South, with its warrior tradition, that support for the war has been strongest.

Once Southerners come to regard the Iraq War as a dirty, shameful war, no choice remains for Bush but to get out as fast as possible while clutching whatever cover Baker can concoct so that the president doesn't look too naked — merely because he is, in fact, stark naked.