December 6, 2006 5:54 p.m. EST

Iraq Study Group Finds Situation
'Grave and Deteriorating'

WASHINGTON -- The long-awaited Iraq Study Group report, which was delivered to President Bush Wednesday morning, concludes that the situation in Iraq is "grave and deteriorating" but could still be improved if the U.S. focuses mainly on strengthening the Iraqi army and launches an immediate "diplomatic offensive" to win cooperation from countries such as Syria and Iran.

[Karl Note: This COULD be useful, but it starts from a foolish notion that you can bargain with a guy who has killed your children, has your wife as a hostage and wants you, simply, to talk to him about his problems while he looks for more of your relatives, finds some, kills them, and continues to want to talk to you!

War is NOT the answer, but some "threat" that makes him confront his own survival is the answer. That "threat" is some form of isolation of him and all who support him -- it will be hard to deprive ourselves of Iranian oil, etc., and that is the pickle our goverment has put us in -- when you are dependent on a murderer for your personal survival, you don't have much hope or choice.]

Both steps would mark a sharp departure from the current Bush administration approach, and could receive a chilly reception from the White House as well as U.S. military commanders in Iraq.

In releasing the report to Congress and the public, the members of the group acknowledged "the current approach is not working," said panel co-chair and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton at a press conference to discuss the report.

On the politically potent issue of U.S. troop levels, the panel, which called the report "The Way Forward," recommends a quick and dramatic reduction in U.S. combat forces under a scenario whereby the U.S. would shift its focus to advising and supporting the Iraqi army. Barring "unexpected developments" on the security front, the report suggests that all U.S. combat brigades not needed to protect U.S. advisers or pursue terrorist cells would leave Iraq by March 2008.

After breakfast meeting with members of the bipartisan panel at the White House, Mr. Bush said, "The report will be taken very seriously by the administration. It takes a tough assessment on the way forward in Iraq," he said. "We will take every proposal seriously and we will take act in a timely fashion."

The president also said that the report was an opportunity for the country to come together on "this very important issue. The country is very tired of pure political bickering. This report will give us all an opportunity to come to common ground for the good of the country -- not for the Republican or Democratic party -- but for the good of the country."

As expected, the panel's recommendations attempt to cut a middle path between demands by many Democrats for a firm timetable for a U.S. withdrawal and President Bush's insistence that U.S. troops remain in Iraq until the job is done. But the report also paints an exceedingly gloomy picture of the situation in Iraq, acknowledging that its own recommendations are flawed and far from a "magic formula" and arguing that no new U.S. strategy will succeed unless U.S. leaders are "candid and forthright with the American people to win their support."

Limited Leverage in Iraq

In an opening letter, the panel's co-chairs, former Secretary of State James Baker and Mr. Hamilton, underscore the limited leverage the U.S. still has in Iraq. "No one can guarantee that any course of action in Iraq at this point will stop sectarian warfare, growing violence, or slide toward chaos," the two write. "If current trends continue, the potential consequences are severe."

The report argues that the U.S. must realize that it is no longer the decisive factor in Iraq. "The most important questions about Iraq's future are now the responsibility of Iraqis," it says. "The United States must adjust its role in Iraq to encourage the Iraqi people to take control of their own destiny."

At the same time, the report recommends that Washington "reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government" if it fails to make progress on national unity and improved security.

Launched by Congress nine months ago to give a fresh take on the flawed U.S. strategy in Iraq, the 10-member panel has taken on inordinate significance in recent weeks as alarm has soared over the growing chaos in Iraq. Both Democrats and Republicans in turn have been scrambling for new ideas to put the U.S. presence in Iraq on a new footing.

"I urge the members of Congress to take this report seriously. While they won't agree with every proposal -- and we probably won't agree with every proposal -- it, nevertheless, is an opportunity to come together and to work together on this important issue," said Mr. Bush after his meeting with the panel.

Provoking New Debate

The panel's recommendations are sure to provoke a storm of new debate in Washington, with some demanding that the administration adopt the panel's plan outright while others may criticize the report as vague, predictable or simply too little, too late.

During his Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday, Robert Gates, Mr. Bush's nominee for secretary of defense, acknowledged that the U.S. isn't currently winning in Iraq. "All options are on the table in terms of how we address this problem," he said. The panel later unanimously approved the nomination and moved it to the full Senate for a vote.

But Mr. Gates, who was a member of the Baker-Hamilton panel until he was selected to succeed Donald Rumsfeld as Pentagon chief, declined to discuss the timing or size of any potential military withdrawal from Iraq. He also didn't offer specifics about what other options the administration would consider to stem the violence.

Mr. Gates's role on the panel had led many to believe that President Bush might be keen to embrace the group's findings, which were laid Wednesday out in a 100-plus-page report. But in recent days, Mr. Bush and his aides have downplayed its importance, depicting the report as just one review among many.

The panel puts a heavy emphasis on the need to launch an immediate international diplomatic effort to stabilize Iraq. "Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively," the report says, advising that the U.S. use both "disincentives and incentives" to coax both countries along. The panel also urges a renewed effort to solve the longstanding Arab-Israeli conflict, including Israel's dispute with Syria.

The report says that Iran "should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shiite groups to encourage national reconciliation."

Calls to open talks with Syria and Iran are likely to get a cool reception from the administration as well as from skeptics who question whether either country really wants to help stabilize Iraq. White House officials have said the U.S. would be open to considering negotiations with Tehran if it drops its support for the militant group Hezbollah and agrees to suspend its uranium-enrichment work. But Washington has given little sign of what it would be willing to offer Iran in exchange for help in Iraq. During a visit to Jordan last week, Mr. Bush told King Abdullah II that "this is not the time for engagement with Syria," a senior administration official said.

[Karl Note: "Normal people" find it hard to understand a national, or group, policy that seems to have the purpose of creating chaos and destruction.

There is one simple and valid explanation.

These "chaos merchants" are basically so affraid of the common man that they think they can personally survive and control by creating SO much chaos that the common man will turn to them for salvation -- that the common man will turn to them for the stable data by which their lives will be saved.

These chaos merchants are made up of spy agencies, international bankers, media, mental health people and a few others. There have been only a few of these with any real power, but their legacy lives on. ]

"There are signs that Syria would be willing to discuss the Iraq situation with the U.S., but there is no certainty that Iran would do so, said Mr. Baker at the panel's press conference.

Panel Suggests Quick Military Shift

On the military side the study group's report suggests a massive and quick shift. Since the invasion the U.S. military effort in Iraq has been dominated by 5,000-soldier brigade combat teams that live and patrol from huge bases. The effort to train Iraqi Army and police forces with small 10-soldier embedded advisory teams has largely been a sideshow.

The study group report recommends immediately turning the sideshow into the U.S. military's main effort in Iraq. "The U.S. should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel…embedded in and supporting Iraqi units," the report reads. It also recommends sending the big U.S. brigades home. "By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq," the report says.

All that would remain would be the embedded advisory teams -- focused on training, equipping ad advising Iraqis -- and special operations forces. Some combat brigades likely would have to stay in the country as a quick reaction force to bail out U.S. advisers if their Iraqi units collapse or are overrun, the report suggests.

The report avoids any timetable for a U.S. withdrawal, but it does suggest that U.S. troops should start to come home even if the Iraqi government doesn't make progress in disarming militias or quelling the insurgency, a move the Bush administration insists it will reject. "The United States must not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq," the report states.

It's unclear what kind of response the report will receive from the U.S. military, which in recent months has pushed U.S. combat brigades to take a bigger role in Baghdad in an effort to stop the growing sectarian violence. The military's support for the advisory mission also has been somewhat haphazard. Although commanders say it is a top priority, the Army hasn't assigned its best and brightest to the teams.

The White House has rejected calls for beginning a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq. Administration officials have said they are committed to maintaining current American troop levels there indefinitely.

Write to Neil King Jr. at neil.king@wsj.com19, Yochi J. Dreazen at yochi.dreazen@wsj.com20 and Greg Jaffe at greg.jaffe@wsj.com21