That, according to an article in The Economist magazine. The article is not as avant-garde as the title suggests - the no is to setting a deadline. Nonetheless, thought some of you might find it interesting.

- http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=8381356

Iraq
Don't do it

Dec 7th 2006
From The Economist print edition

The Baker-Hamilton group wants to set a date for leaving Iraq. George Bush should say no



IT IS not quite a coup d'état. But seldom before has the American Congress—or, more correctly, a bipartisan committee of wise men and women reporting to Congress—put a wartime president in such an awkward predicament. James Baker, Lee Hamilton and their Iraq Study Group said this week that if George Bush adopted their 79-point plan for Iraq, the bulk of America's fighting troops could be out of the country by the first quarter of 2008—that is to say within 15 months or so.

This is not, the wise men said, a policy of cutting and running. On the contrary, Mr Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman, said as he presented the report that the group supported Mr Bush's declared aim of creating an Iraq that is able to govern, sustain and defend itself (see article). Mr Baker, a former secretary of state and a long-time friend of the Bush family, acknowledged that a precipitous withdrawal could cause a bloodbath inside Iraq and perhaps provoke a wider regional war. But the wise men also say—and who could disagree?—that America's army should not remain in Iraq indefinitely, in an “open-ended” commitment. So the idea of leaving by early 2008 is a compromise.

The Baker-Hamilton analysis of what has gone wrong feels right. It is that Iraq is sliding into a sectarian war mainly because its fractious politicians have not been willing to make the concessions needed to achieve national reconciliation. In particular, the Shias and their Kurdish allies have not done enough to allay the fears of the previously dominant Sunni minority that they are being excluded and disadvantaged under the new order. But the group strays on to much more treacherous ground when it proposes a way to correct this.

Do what we say or we go (but we're going anyway)
Its central recommendation is that America should use its muscle in Iraq to put pressure on its elected government to make concessions to the Sunnis. Indeed, the group wants Mr Bush to give Iraq's prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, a list of reconciliation “milestones”, such as softening the rules on de-Baathification, agreeing on a fairer way of sharing oil revenues and revising Iraq's new constitution in ways that allay the other fears of the Sunnis. The wise men say that if the Iraqi government fails to make substantial progress on this, and on improving its performance generally, America should reduce or remove its political, economic and military support.

Fine, in principle. Having spent so many lives and dollars on Iraq, why shouldn't America shove its government towards reconciliation? That is what America's energetic ambassador in Baghdad has been trying to do behind the scenes for many months. The odd thing about the Baker-Hamilton group's idea is that it wants Mr Bush to do this shoving after he has already thrown away his principal means of persuasion.

If Mr Bush adopts the plan, Iraqis will know that the bulk of America's forces will be out by early 2008. If opinion polls are to be believed, that will delight many Americans as well as many people in Iraq. By thinning out its army, America will reduce the Iraqis' sense that they are under occupation, and so suck some of the oxygen out of the anti-American insurgency. But the Baker-Hamilton group is surely wrong to believe that announcing the army's departure will strengthen America's leverage over the internal politics of Iraq. The opposite is likelier. Mr Bush, a lame-duck president, would be a lame-duck president presiding over a lame-duck occupation.

In fairness, the group is not advocating a complete withdrawal. Some 15,000 American soldiers would stay behind to train the Iraqis, as would some rapid-reaction troops, and special forces to lead the hunt for al-Qaeda. If the Iraqi government performs, it will still receive political and economic support. The wise men hope these will be inducement enough for Mr Maliki to do as America says. Hope is all it can be. At present, the American army is the only strong military force capable of holding the ring in Iraq. Pulling it out may merely encourage a vicious fight to fill the vacuum.

But at least it's a plan
The best argument for the Baker-Hamilton report is that the present strategy is failing. It will soon be four years since the invasion. Iraq is now so violent that many Iraqis think life was better under Saddam Hussein. Robert Gates, Mr Bush's own choice to replace Donald Rumsfeld as defence secretary, said candidly to Congress this week that America wasn't winning. Haunted not only by their losses—nearly 3,000 soldiers dead—but a sense of being unwelcome and making matters worse, the American people are aching to put the whole misadventure behind them. Now that a powerful, bipartisan committee has dangled the possibility of doing just that within little over a year, it would take extraordinary stubbornness—or courage—from Mr Bush to ignore it.

He should not ignore it. The report contains many useful recommendations. These include the proposals to enlist the help of Iraq's neighbours and for bolder peacemaking in Palestine. It would be a mistake to expect instant results. For example, Baker-Hamilton proposes talks between Israel and those Palestinians who recognise its right to exist—but the Palestinians' present Hamas government refuses to recognise Israel's right to exist. As for Iran and Syria, they have little reason to help an America that insists rightly on preventing Syria from intimidating Lebanon and Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. All the same, it does no harm for America to be seen to be working with an open mind and flexible diplomacy.

What will not help is scuttling from Iraq before exhausting every possible effort to put the country back together. The Baker-Hamilton group is right to say that America should neither leave precipitously nor stay forever. Leaning harder on Iraq's politicians is an excellent idea. But setting an arbitrary deadline of early 2008 for most of the soldiers to depart risks weakening America's bargaining power, intensifying instead of dampening the fighting and projecting an image of weakness that will embolden enemies everywhere. On this recommendation, Mr Bush needs to insist on his prerogatives as custodian of America's foreign policy and just say no.