Military alone not solution in Iraq, Baker says

Analysis:

This article is based upon a talk given by former Secretary of State James Baker, who was the featured speaker at the Annual meeting of the World Affairs Council of Western Michigan. Baker’s talked focused on Iraq. Does the first sentence of the Press story imply that Baker was critical of the current US war in Iraq? The only thing in the story that support a critical position by Baker was that he wrote an op-ed in 2002 in the New York Times “issuing caution about a military attack against Iraq.”

The story also mentions that Baker “co-chaired the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that in December 2006 called for withdrawal of most U.S. combat troops by early 2008.” The Press writer does not substantiate this claim that the study called for a withdrawal of most US combat troops by 2008. The Iraq Study Group report does advocate for an ongoing US occupation of Iraq and says nothing about dismantling the US military bases that are throughout Iraq. The Press story also does not mention James Baker’s role with the Carlyle Group, which Baker had to cut ties with in order to be on the Iraq Study Group. The Carlyle group was representing the government of Kuwait, which was seeking payments from Iraq from the 1990 invasion, and Baker was a lawyer with the Carlyle Group at the time. This conflict of interest was only discovered after journalist Naomi Klein’s story in the Nation magazine.

The article ends with Baker responding to how Bush would be judged as a President and Baker says “it could be a good one, provided Iraq turns out OK. And it still can.” What do you think baker means by Iraq turning out OK?

Story:

If not a direct critique of the Iraq War, former Secretary of State James Baker’s message sounded suspiciously like a cautionary tale of foreign policy gone wrong.

Baker repeatedly warned Monday against reliance on military solutions to complex foreign policy problems and the dangers of going it alone abroad. They have been central criticisms of the handling of the Iraq war by President Bush.

“Iraq is a very good example of the limits of military strength,” Baker said in his appearance in DeVos Place before the World Affairs Council of Western Michigan.

Baker co-chaired the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that in December 2006 called for withdrawal of most U.S. combat troops by early 2008. It also advocated direct talks with Iraq and Syria as part of a “diplomatic offensive.”

Baker noted that World War I, World War II and the Cold War were won by coalitions. The 1991 Gulf War was fought by a broad coalition that included the United Kingdom, France and many Arab nations with significant financial contributions from the Persian Gulf states, Baker said.

The vast majority of troops in Iraq — once called the “coalition of the willing” — are American, with the United Kingdom on track to reduce its force there to 2,500.

Noting the threats from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, Baker again said: “It is evident that military action alone cannot be the sole solution.”

As he laid out a series of maxims that combine idealism and pragmatism, Baker added that policy makers have to be willing to shift course when it becomes clear a strategy is not working.

“When events change, we must be prepared to change with them,” he said.

Baker, 77, served as chief of staff and treasury secretary for President Ronald Reagan. He was secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush from 1989 through 1992, earning credit for helping forge coalition of nations fighting Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

In 2002, Baker warned President George W. Bush not to “go it alone” against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Writing on the op-ed page of the New York Times, Baker joined another member of the first Bush administration, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft in issuing caution about a military attack against Iraq.

In Monday’s speech, Baker said domestic support is “vital” to success in foreign wars, without noting that nearly 60 percent of Americans now believe the Iraq war is not worth fighting.

Still, Baker said it would be a mistake to assume Bush will be judged a failure by history.

Asked what Bush’s legacy might be, Baker said it could be a good one, “provided Iraq turns out OK. And it still can.”