Return to Transcripts main page

Insight

Iraq Study Group Report

Aired December 06, 2006 - 14:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROSEMARY CHURCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was a who's who of American politics, all talking about what to do in Iraq.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We do not recommend a stay-the-course solution. In our opinion, that approach is no longer viable.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Many Americans are understandably dissatisfied. Our ship of state has hit rough waters.

CHURCH: Venerated voices from the halls of recent U.S. history, sending a message that echoed over the airwaves. The U.S. policy in Iraq is not working.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Hello and welcome. I'm Rosemary Church.

Well, they're Democrats and Republicans, a group chosen by the U.S. Congress and endorsed by the president. They came to the table with differing opinions on the war in Iraq, and after eight months have come to some sovereign conclusions about U.S. policy in Iraq. The country is floundering, U.S. forces need to refocus their mission and the Iraqi government must begin to take charge.

Well, the 142-page report from the Iraq Study Group is called "The Way Forward," because, as many of its members said today, there will be grave consequences in Iraq if real change does not happen soon.

The panel also called for a regional dialogue including Iran and Syria, made no guarantees that their recommendations would work, and provided no firm timetable, but home that many U.S. forces could withdraw by 2008.

Well, the president said he would give the group's findings serious consideration.

For more on how this is being received at the White House, here's Suzanne Malveaux.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: President Bush this morning was presented his copy of the Iraq Study Group's report, 79 recommendations in all. Each one of the 10 members giving him specifics here at the White House this morning. The president came forward, saying that it was a tough assessment when it comes to U.S. policy in Iraq, but he also said as well that he is going to take these recommendations very seriously.

That, of course, is the question, just how seriously he is going to take these recommendations. The White House is emphasizing the point in which they see agreement with this panel. First, the fact that they don't call for any kind of timetable, that they do not call for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, and that they do call for a different kind of role with the military, from U.S. soldiers on the frontlines to embedded with Iraqi soldiers, helping them train to take control of the security of their country. That is something that the Bush administration says it is already actively engaged in.

They do not, however, change their position, nor do they even discuss the situation when it comes to one of the recommendations, that is for the Bush administration to directly talk with Iran and Syria. The Bush administration, the president, very hesitant to do that unconditionally. That is something that they are not willing to let go of at this time.

Now, the president does want to appear that he is looking at these recommendations and certainly reaching out to both Democrats and Republicans. This afternoon, he will host a group of both parties, leadership of both parties, here at the White House, from committees on the armed services, foreign affairs and intelligence, to talk about this report.

Then we will see. Tomorrow he will meet with British Prime Minister Tony Blair here at the White House, again to look over, to assess. But we told do not expect any kind of decisions or endorsements at least for another couple of weeks.

Suzanne Malveaux, CNN, the White House.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHURCH: As Suzanne just reported, the group stressed that the Iraqi government and its army must begin to stand on its own, with U.S. troops moving from the foreground of daily security operations to a support role.

The group said training of Iraqi troops needed to be increased five- fold using U.S. combat troops that are already in the country.

Ben Wedeman reports that so far, many agree the Iraqis could benefit from it.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

BEN WEDEMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is how it's supposed to happen: Iraqi soldiers capturing insurgents, wresting peace and stability from the chaos that is Iraq today. But this is just a drill.

More than three-and-a-half years after the U.S.-led invasion, the Iraqi Army and police are supposed to be increasingly taking the lead while American forces provide backup.

LT. COL. CHUCK WEBSTER, U.S. ARMY: And we're here to support you in your checkpoints. If you get attacked or you have a suspected terrorist coming through your checkpoints, we're here to support you.

WEDEMAN: But the performance of Iraqi security forces has, at best, been mixed.

The Iraqi police have failed to establish basic order, despite billions of dollars and millions of man hours spent on training. And the police force is widely believed to be infiltrated by the insurgents and militias and plagued by widespread corruption.

The Army has fared only slightly better, suffering from high levels of desertion and lacking strong leadership, with many U.S. troops frustrated by what sometimes appears to be a lack of motivation.

LT. COL. ROSS BROWN, U.S. ARMY: They didn't do too much work yesterday.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: About how much work...

BROWN: They didn't do too much work the day before.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. But...

BROWN: They haven't done too much work since they've been here.

WEDEMAN: The bipartisan Iraq Study Group and other reviews ongoing in Washington are trying to address these many shortcomings. But it will be an uphill battle in a country where the best laid plans have a way of going terribly wrong.

(on camera): And while the focus is on fixing Iraq's security forces, some military analysts are convinced the real problem lies with Iraq's government, which is so divided among rival sectarian groups and parties that it simply cannot provide the leadership necessary to bring Iraq back from the brink of catastrophe.

Ben Wedeman, CNN, Baghdad.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

CHURCH: All right, we're going to take a short break now. When we come back, is there anything new in the groups findings? And how much, if anything, will change because of them?

Do stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHURCH: The Iraq Study Group is a pedigreed panel that's headed up by two statesmen. James Baker served as secretary of state under the first President Bush and Lee Hamilton was a Democratic congressman for over three decades. They co-chaired the committee that, including themselves, consisted of five Republicans and five Democrats.

Welcome back.

Well, many say the recent U.S. congressional election was a barometer of how many Americans feel about the war in Iraq. Generals have spoken out, even some of the architects of the war in Iraq themselves have weighed in. Now it's the Iraq Study Group's turn.

Joe Johns gives us more detail on this high-profile group of men and women.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOE JOHNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For the record, the main thing the Iraqi Study Group was supposed to do was give a fresh assessment of the situation, though the people doing the assessing are sort of a government service dream team.

There are five Democrats and five Republicans in the group, mostly lawyers. The co-chairs are two pillars of the Washington establishment, Republican James Baker, distinguished former secretary of state who helped build the coalition for the first Gulf War. Baker's counterpart, the Democrat Lee Hamilton, is known as a good talker, consensus builder, former chairman of the House Committee on International Relations.

Both have done this kind of thing before. Hamilton co-chaired the 9/11 Commission. The just plain members of the group are anything but just plain, starting, of course, with the ultimate swing vote of modern jurisprudence, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

There's a top Regan-era Republican law enforcer, former Attorney General Edwin Meese. Lawrence Eagleburger, like Baker, is another former secretary of state. There are three Clinton veterans; former Secretary of Defense William Perry, former White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and former advisor Vernon Jordan.

The group is rounded out with a pair of former senators, Democrat Charles Robb of Virginia and Republican Alan Simpson of Wyoming.

Joe Johns, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHURCH: All right. For more now on the recommendations of this panel, we're joined by Peter Khalil, an analyst from the Eurasia Group.

Thanks, Peter, so much for talking with us.

Of course, the expectations were so great for this report. Has it lived up to the hype?

Well, I think former Secretary of State Baker aptly put it that there's no magic formula to solve Iraq's problems. I actually see the report and its recommendations more about trying to solve the U.S.'s foreign policy problems in Iraq and the region more broadly, and there's nothing really new there that hasn't been discussed in the past.

There's a couple of little things here and there in the recommendations that are a bit new, but otherwise, broadly, it's about promoting stability in Iraq over the sort of lofty goals that the administration has, or had, of democratization.

CHURCH: So by saying that, are you saying that if these recommendations are implemented, that it could make a difference?

KHALIL: I think it can, because if the ultimate goal and the reprioritization of the goal is for stability in the region, bringing in the regional players, brining in the regional actors to be part of that, may lead to that stabilization.

Many of the neighbors of Iraq, including Iran and Syria, don't want to see the Iraqi state collapse. But, of course, what this means is the U.S. not only accepting Iranian influence in Iraq, but also accepting the increase of that influence as a trade off for that stability and, obviously, accepting its own waning of its own strategic influence across the region.

CHURCH: Peter, you say there's not really very much that's new in this, but in essence, as a whole, it seems to repudiate U.S. foreign policy. So how difficult will it be for George W. Bush to implement these recommendations?

KHALIL: Well, he may cherry pick some of the recommendations. He may tick the box on some of the other recommendations to be seen to be doing the bipartisan thing. The problem, of course, is that there's still going to be a lot of resistance or there still is resistance within the administration about opening up dialogue with Iran, particularly from the remaining neo-cons.

There are, however, pragmatists within the administration who understand that there at least needs to be some tacit Iranian support for a smooth U.S. transition and exit out of Iraq and for the Iraqi state to remain stable and not collapse over the next couple of years.

I suspect Bush, though, with an eye on his legacy and the fact that he doesn't have to go up for reelection, may try and actually change the situation on the ground himself and avoid sort of the main parts of those recommendations.

CHURCH: Yes. I mean, one of those comments from James Baker was very pointed, wasn't it. "You talk to your enemies as well as your friends," in reference to that recommendation for direct talks between U.S., Iran and Syria. A bit of a slap in the face. Does it make it more difficult for President Bush to turn his back on that recommendation?

KHALIL: Well, there's actually a bit of an effort last year by Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, to reach out to the Iranians, low-level talks to try and get them involved in security initiatives in Iraq and strengthening the border, and that was very quickly shut down by Cheney and Rumsfeld, I presume.

Now that Rumsfeld is gone, that resistance is probably a little weaker and, as I said earlier, there are elements of the administration that realize that, you know, if you're going to keep the Iraqi state together, you may have to accept the reality of the influence of Iraq's neighbors in holding that state together, particularly Iran.

CHURCH: And the overall message, it seemed from both co-chairmen, was this message of unity, of political consensus. Is that truly a reality, though, when it comes to the United States and abroad? I mean, they are calling for that whole consensus, that whole sense of unity.

KHALIL: Well, two points on that, Rosemary. One, abroad, the regional players in the Middle East have a common thread there. They don't want to see the Iraqi state collapse for their own vested interests and their own reasons, although they don't see eye to eye on a lot of other issues. But that's common.

Domestically, with a hostile Congress in January, there is also the possibility that the Democrats may not want necessarily to have their fingerprints on a particular plan for Iraq, especially if it doesn't work over the next couple of years in the lead up to the '08 election, but they'll certainly go after the Bush administration with a number of subpoenas about their conduct of the war in the past. And I think the administration will, as I said earlier, at least adopt some of the recommendations to show that they're doing some sort of bipartisan approach and following through on that.

But, again, the Bush administration would want to see at least some change of the reality on the ground so that they don't have to concede the strategic influence to Iran, but that may be a high-risk strategy and may mean more U.S. casualties in the short term.

CHURCH: All right. It will be interesting to see, and it appears we only have a couple more weeks to see what the outcome of that is.

Thanks so much, Peter Khalil, talking with us there from the Eurasia Group.

KHALIL: Thanks.

CHURCH: And we do have to take a short break now. When we come back, if the Iraq Study Group recommends the U.S. change course in Iraq, other countries have already come to their own conclusions about their forces there. Coming up, a look at the future of Iraq's security.

Do stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHURCH: Italy pulled the last of its troops out of Iraq last week. It once had 3,000 troops based in southern Iraq. Poland plans to follow suit next year. And South Korea plans to reduce the size of its contingent by about half. Japan and Spain have already withdrawn their forces. So what's next for the coalition of the willing?

Welcome back.

Well, a new poll among Iraqis suggests that they, too, would like to see change in their country. A survey found that many Iraqis want the U.S. to join the list of countries who are leaving Iraq, with the transition happening sooner rather than later.

Nic Robertson has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): This weekend, a triple bombing in the heart of Baghdad, 51 dead, and more than 90 injured. Horrific, and attacks like this more common than ever before.

A new survey conducted by Iraqi pollsters shows, the daily violence is escalating Iraqi demands that U.S. troops leave. More than half the 2,000 Iraqis surveyed said they want all U.S. troops out now. And almost half the remainder want a withdrawal to begin immediately.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): The percentage of who oppose the presence of U.S. forces is increasing. And you know that is not good for the U.S. military.

ROBERTSON: Members of the independent survey team, trained by the U.S. State Department, fear insurgent or militia attack, and agreed to talk only if we hide their identity. They have been conducting surveys here for three years. Even they are surprised so many want U.S. troops out.

(on camera): That the situation will improve if the U.S. troops withdraw immediately?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, immediately.

ROBERTSON (voice-over): But that's not all. In this poll of Sunnis and Shias, in both mixed and divided communities, 19 out of every 20 people say security was better under Saddam Hussein. Nine in 10 people say they feel danger whenever they see American soldiers. And 2/3 say they'll feel safer when U.S. troops have left the country.

The big-picture response, according to the pollsters: U.S. troops are part of the problem, not the solution, and they want a change in U.S. policy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Most of the people in our survey hope for a new policy in Iraq.

ROBERTSON: Although this survey was commissioned by Iraq's government, the results have also been sent to the State Department, and reveal what many U.S. officials have long believed: fixing the economy could help stop the violence.

The best way to disarm insurgents, the Iraqis said, is to offer them jobs. Perhaps less surprising given the worsening security, Iraqis are beginning to question their own democratic choices. Half say they wouldn't vote for the same party again. And two of every three say they have no confidence in the current government. Survey officials say the poll has a margin of error of just over 3 percentage points.

(on camera): The polling was conducted right after the U.S. midterm elections, at the beginning of November. And what the survey team says unites Iraqis more than anything else is their hope that Democrats will use their new power to shape a new policy for Iraq.

Nic Robertson, CNN, Baghdad.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHURCH: Well, both the midterm election and the findings of the Iraq Study Group are strong signals to the Bush administration that change is wanted and needed in Iraq. Some other countries with a smaller presence in Iraq have already either left the war zone or reduced the number of their forces.

Are there any lessons to be taken from those who have gone before? Joining us now to talk about this is Anthony Grayling, a contributing editor for "Prospect" magazine.

Welcome to you.

Just a quick comment on the story we had just before this. Sobering results on those Iraqi opinion polls. What's your response?

ANTHONY GRAYLING, "PROSPECT": Well, they're hardly surprising, in a way. I mean, after all, the situation inside Iraqi is desperate for Iraqis who are there and they see the situation from this very internal perspective, where they think that both the insurgency and the civil strife in the country is very much exacerbated by the presence of foreign troops. And of course, over 90 percent of those troops are American troops. So hardly surprising that they want them to go.

But I don't think that they're really fully cognizant of what some of the consequences might be if that withdrawal were to precipitate. I mean, it's very, very interesting that the Baker-Hamilton report today said that a precipitate abandonment of the policy that's being conducted in Iraq by American troops would have regional consequences of a very serious kind, and I think that's a perspective which is lacking inside Iraq itself.

CHURCH: Indeed, but what do you think the United States can learn from the departure of other nations from Iraq?

GRAYLING: Well, the truth of the matter is that the Baker-Hamilton report, which in itself, of course, is a very solid piece of common sense, is representative of a view that's been held by other countries, and especially countries in the European Union, for quite some time now.

Your package earlier mentioned that Spain had already withdrawn back in 2004 and other major players in the coalition of the willing, originally 49 countries, now officially listed at 48, have been leaving over the last two or three years, and some major names just this year, Italy and Japan. And I think their anxiety, especially the quagmire inside Iraq itself, I mean, we have recognized for two years the tremendous danger of that happening, the insurgency and the civil strife escalating.

But this problem, which is touched on in the Baker-Hamilton report, of wider implications for the region, the fact that Sunni countries neighboring Iraq are not at all happy about the greater influence of Iran and of what sometimes is called the Shiite presence through the Middle East. But these all portend very difficult and dangerous circumstances in the future if the project in Iraq fails, and these countries don't want to be involved there. Their own home populations are very unhappy about it, and they voted with their feet.

CHURCH: And we're already hearing that British troops are going to be significantly fewer by the end of 2007. And, of course, if we do see the implementation of these recommendations from the Iraqi Study Group, then we're going to see a lot fewer U.S. troops by early 2008. So what's the landscape going to be in Iraq? How is it going to look and what's the likely consequence of that?

GRAYLING: If you peer down at the situation from a satellite, so to speak, you see that there are other firestorms going on in the region. On the one hand, you've got the great difficulty with the Palestinian-Israeli situation. You've also got the difficulty in Afghanistan, and there I think part of the reason why the United Kingdom wants to withdraw at least many of its troops from Iraq is because it's heavily committed in Afghanistan, and that's a long-term process of nation rebuilding as well. So you have the sense that many governments are conscious of the fact that there are so many other difficulties in the region that they really are going to have to try to conserve resources.

I mean, we see in the Baker-Hamilton report a saying that the United States military overstretch is becoming serious, and that's a consideration that applies much more to other nations in the coalition.

CHURCH: All right, Anthony Grayling, thank you so much for talking with us.

And that's all for this edition of INSIGHT. I'm Rosemary Church. Stay with us.

END

TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE THE SECURE ONLINE ORDER FROM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com