The Iraq Study Group: Hope for Unifying the Country?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
While the situation in Iraq simply does not lend itself to terribly new assessments and recommendations nobody ever thought of or articulated, the Report of the Iraq Study Group (report is posted on the Washington Post site) has an important advantage over expected reviews by administration insiders as former Secretary of State James Baker pointed out during the Group’s press conference: it is the product of  bi-partisan cooperation and consensus. Indeed, yesterday’s comments by Democratic and Republican members of the Group were expressions of a shared commitment to transcend partisan and ideological differences. If implemented (and hours after unveiling the report on Capitol Hill, the study group's co-chairmen, former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), told Washington Post reporters and editors that their comprehensive plan has a chance to work, provided it is implemented in its entirety and not piecemeal), the recommendation package will not be a silver bullet that promises a miracle turnaround in Iraq. It is only the last best hope to change course for the better of all parties involved. But what hope is there that the political bickering stops and that Washington and the American people follow the example of the Baker/Hamilton panel?

When the ISG members were asked during the news conference, what the members would do about the implementation of their recommendations by President Bush, former White House chief-of-staff Leon Panetta gave the following, broad answer:

This country cannot be at war and be as divided as we are today. You've got to unify this country.

And I'd suggest to the president that what we did in this group can perhaps serve as an example to try to pull together the leadership of the Congress and try to focus on the recommendations that we've made.

We have made a terrible commitment in Iraq in terms of our blood and our treasure. And I think we owe it to them to try to take one last chance at making Iraq work, and more importantly, to take a last chance at unifying this country on this war.

After receiving a copy of the report, President Bush seemed to find conciliatory words as well, when he said,

The country, in my judgment, is tired of pure political bickering that happens in Washington, andthey understand that on this important issue of war and peace, it is best for our country to work together. And I understand how difficult that is, but this report will give us all an opportunity to find common ground, for the good of the country -- not for the good of the Republican Party or the Democrat Party, but for the good of the country.

Frankly, when I listened to the President’s remarks during breakfast this morning, I figured I had not heard right. Had he really said once again, “Democrat Party?” Later in the day, the transcript revealed that this was indeed the case. I felt the same as Dan Fromkin of the Washington Post who pointed out in his post,

Bush's alleged commitment to bipartisanship would probably be easier to swallow if he referred to the opposition party by its proper name. Although the White House press office tidied up the official transcript, the fact is that even in talking about finding common ground, the president referred to the "Democrat party" -- a clipped, derogatory locution favored by those who suggest that it isn't "democratic."

Not exactly an encouraging sign that the President is ready to bring Washingtonians and the whole country together.