Iraq and the art of postponement
Comments (7)
Thursday, November 16, 2006 | 02:16 PM ET
By Henry Champ
Canadian poet F.R. Scott wrote a sonnet about Mackenzie King some years ago, which contained the following lines:
The height of his ambition
Was to pile a Parliamentary Committee on a Royal Commission,
To have "conscription if necessary
But not necessarily conscription"
To let Parliament decide —
Later.
Postpone, postpone, abstain.
Mackenzie King would have approved of the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan commission that is seeking consensus on a new approach to the war in Iraq.
In fact most prime ministers would likely endorse the effort, having used the dodge themselves.
There have been some 450 official inquiries, some royal commissions, some not, since Confederation.
Some have done excellent work, but others have been costly fiascos. The common thread is that most deflected attention from a political hot potato.
This allowed the government of the day to say the matter is under investigation, knowing that when the heat is off the report will benignly gather dust
Canadian prime ministers would probably agree with David Gergen's somewhat cynical assessment of this study group. The former adviser to presidents Clinton, Reagan, Ford and Nixon, told MSNBC, "it's almost as if the White House is outsourcing it's foreign policy plan to a group on the outside."
And is that a realistic option?
Americans may not have as much experience with independent commissions the way we Canadians do, but columnist Michael Kinsley got it about right this week when he wrote: "Ordinarily a commission such as this has two possible purposes, action or inaction.
"Sometime a problem is referred to a prestigious commission so that the commission can recommend things that everyone knows must be done but that nobody has the nerve to propose … at least nobody who has to run for office. The commission can ram this policy down the politician's throats. If it is bipartisan, and what fun is a commission that isn't bipartisan, the commission also protects both parties against a stab in the back by the other."
But what chance of success?
One of the problems with this commission, however, is that it not a creation of the White House. The Iraq Study Group was born in Congress and a key problem, obviously, will be getting the president to accept or even consider it's recommendations.
The group is composed of five Democrats and five Republicans and is also being called the Baker-Hamilton Commission after its two chairmen, former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, and former secretary of state James Baker, a Republican who served the current president's father.
And as Baker said recently, "our report will not be particularly meaningful if it has dissenting views."
Consensus, though, is far from guaranteed. Emboldened by their congressional victories, Democrats appear to want a quick end to direct U.S. involvement in Iraq, while George W. Bush still talks longingly of the "seeds of democracy" being planted in that country.
But the commission has served at least to run some ideas up the flappole.
One that hasn't met much favour is a regional conference involving Iran and Syria.
A more popular option is a phased withdrawal that is tied to deadlines for the Iraq government to take on the responsibility for security.
The biggest difficulty that this commission faces, however, may be the expectations that are building around it. Can it reasonably put forward a "successful" strategy for Iraq, when victory there may no longer be an option?
It is to report in December.
« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »
This discussion is now Closed. View the Comments.
Washington File »
About the Author
Henry Champ is CBC Newsworld's correspondent in Washington, D.C., delivering Canadian viewers the latest developments in the U.S. political arena. Recently, he has been a leading Canadian voice on coverage of the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq and the growing concerns over the Canada-U.S. relationship.
Recent Posts
- Vapour ads create successful campaign smokescreens
- Henry Champ
- Thursday, September 11, 2008
- The parties are over
- Henry Champ
- Friday, September 5, 2008
- The attack dog fights back
- Henry Champ
- Thursday, September 4, 2008
- The plan for Sarah Palin
- Henry Champ
- Wednesday, September 3, 2008
- Paying a high price for Palin
- Henry Champ
- Tuesday, September 2, 2008
- Subscribe to this blog
Recent Comments
- There's only one way to save Iraq. Pardon Saddam...
- Iraq and the art of postponement
- Thank you, Henry Champ and those residing north of the 49...
- Iraq and the art of postponement
- Post Iraq war...all those tens of thousands of wasted liv...
- Iraq and the art of postponement
- Negotiate with the Axis of Evil...never!!! (oops except N...
- Iraq and the art of postponement
- No one in the current administration seems to have asked ...
- Iraq and the art of postponement
Archives
- September 2008
- (6 postings)
- August 2008
- (6 postings)
- June 2008
- (3 postings)
- May 2008
- (6 postings)
- April 2008
- (3 postings)
- March 2008
- (4 postings)
- February 2008
- (5 postings)
- January 2008
- (7 postings)
- November 2007
- (2 postings)
- October 2007
- (7 postings)
- September 2007
- (1 postings)
- July 2007
- (6 postings)
- June 2007
- (5 postings)
- May 2007
- (6 postings)
- April 2007
- (6 postings)
- March 2007
- (5 postings)
- February 2007
- (7 postings)
- January 2007
- (8 postings)
- December 2006
- (7 postings)
- November 2006
- (8 postings)
- October 2006
- (10 postings)
- September 2006
- (9 postings)
- August 2006
- (9 postings)
Comments (7)
Wayne N. Shuster
There's only one way to save Iraq.
Pardon Saddam and give him his old job back.
He may have been a brutal dictator, but he made the camels run on time.
Posted December 8, 2006 01:52 AM
Jon
Thank you, Henry Champ and those residing north of the 49th parallel, for doing something to keep Americans focused on the real problems the U.S. faces. It's saddening and frustrating here to see these commissions used because no one who wants to be in power wants to make tough decisions. And it's sad that the vast majority of the U.S. populace seems to be the same way.
Posted November 21, 2006 03:37 PM
tim
Vancouver
Post Iraq war...all those tens of thousands of wasted lives. Why should GWB be allowed to walk free after his actions are so similar to the 'war criminals' the world condemns and brings to justice? Another American war waged and lost..I guess in my life they 'beat' Grenada...
Posted November 21, 2006 10:22 AM
Steve
Negotiate with the Axis of Evil...never!!! (oops except North Korea, cause they have the bomb...) Hmmmmm.....
The Bush administration has to stop dealing in absolutism and some idealistic view of capitalistic democracy and America's role in spreading its virtues around the world. I know they won't...so in two years from now, will anyone else? I could see a pragamtist like Rudolph G. doing it, but Hilary, nope, Senator McCain, probably not...who else is big enough to eat some crow and sit down with the Syrians and Iranians?
Did I hear somewhere that Newt Gingrich is considering running for Pres? Now that is a sick joke in the waiting.
Posted November 20, 2006 06:49 AM
Greg Noah
Newfoundland
No one in the current administration seems to have asked the question, "Is this war winnable and how?" None of the root causes of the regional threats or the deficiencies of the US policy in Iraq have been addressed in a meaningful way.
GWB has shown he is stunningly inept in both embarking on the escapade of invading Iraq and managing the ongoing war. He seems to have an amazingly poor grasp on the reality of occupying a country with a fractious populace close in size to that of Canada's.
There is no winning this war, not tomorrow, not in 5 years time. If Syria and Iran are not included in a formal way (it seems they are already present in Iraq in some capacity)the US will leave a vacumn when as it departs. It's presence was always too small to do the job effectively and as the Democrats bring home troops in sizeable numbers some group(s) will take their place.
Posted November 17, 2006 03:25 PM
Don
I don't know what the solution to the disaster that is modern day Iraq but whatever it turns out to be, it may as well include Syria and Iran, the two biggest players in the immediate vicinity and perhaps the two most meddelsome (after the US of course).
In stark terms the choice is rather simple, either go to war against Iran and Syria or include them in a dialogue with an eye toward stabilizing the region and bringing an end to the civil war.The only way to ensure some sort of stability or an end to the current chaos must include them. The US and Syria already collaborate on torture so that's a basis to begin the process for the normalization of relations: as for Iran it's doubtful they're going to cave in on the nuclear issue anytime soon it's either talk or fight. Either way, this situation cannot continue on into an indefinite future. Like it or lump it, the US will have to someday concede that their real partners in Iraq are not Britain and Australia but Syria and Iran, and latter two are not junior partners either - the fact that the US is losing or has already lost this war makes them the most influential and important players in the region. Better get to it George, you have a lot of sucking up to do.
Posted November 17, 2006 11:05 AM
Steve
Success in this case is a very relative term...
Maybe if GWB had tried this outsourcing in 2002/2003, the world would not find itself in the state it is today.
Posted November 17, 2006 07:33 AM