How The Iraq Study Group Came To Be

Rep. Frank Wolf Saw Deteriorating Situation, Pushed For New Approach

(Christian Science Monitor)  This article was written by Gail Russell Chaddock.

---

Rep. Frank Wolf (R) of Virginia has traveled to the most difficult war and civil war zones on the planet — from Chechnya and Bosnia to Sudan and Algeria. He had visited Iraq twice before, both times without a military escort. On his third visit, in September 2005, he had an epiphany.

He was about to tour a maternity ward in Tikrit when armed security guards were called in. Noting the mothers' and nurses' reaction, he recalls, "I said: 'We've got to get out of here. We can't walk through a maternity ward with guns like this scaring people.'" He concluded then that the U.S. needed "fresh eyes" on its Iraq involvement.

From that small beginning has sprung one of the most-anticipated blue-ribbon commissions in recent years — the Iraq Study Group, which began deliberating over final conclusions this week.

How an obscure panel became a policy touchstone for Republicans and Democrats is a story in itself. More important, it illustrates those rare moments when a crisis reaches such a point that official Washington temporarily loosens hold of the reins. It's in those moments that experienced outside voices — think the 9/11 and Warren commissions — can make themselves heard. The Iraq panel, in particular, may prove particularly influential because of the escalating chaos in Iraq.

"We're losing," says Michael O'Hanlon, a policy analyst at the Brookings Institution. "One of the few hopes we have left is someone who is close enough to [President] Bush that he will be listened to by Bush — and smart enough and independent enough to see this in a different way."

Unlike the 9/11 Commission, the Iraq Study Group has conducted its review of U.S. engagement in Iraq in strict secrecy. Panelists were not publicly vetted. There were no open hearings or regular updates on whether the administration was being cooperative in releasing needed documents.

"If they had held open hearings or gone on television talk shows, like the 9/11 Commission, they would have been forced into positions by the very nature of the questions that they would have lost their independence," says Wolf, who is the co-chairman of the human rights caucus in Congress.

While he would have liked to see Congress take up the serious work of oversight and recalibrating strategy on the Iraq war, he opted instead for a panel of "wise persons," because the Congress was too divided along partisan lines to play that role effectively. Like the 9/11 Commission, the panel is to report to the American people, not just to the president or the Congress, he says. "This will be the defining issue of our time: How do we deal with the issue of terrorism? — and it has to be done in a bipartisan way," he says.

The Iraq Study Group is the flip side of the usual blue-ribbon panel, whose launch is often its high point. It began modestly as a one-line earmark in last spring's emergency defense spending bill — "$1 million ... for activities relating to Iraq."

It was born from the deteriorating security situation in Baghdad in 2005, which Wolf says was a sharp contrast to his second visit in 2003, with Rep. Christopher Shays (R) of Connecticut. While even then they traveled anonymously in old, beat-up vehicles for security reasons, they could visit villages, homes, hospitals, and schools relatively freely. In Al Kut, they were welcomed to join a wedding celebration and told how people loved America.

After his 2005 trip, Wolf urged President Bush to select a group of "capable and distinguished individuals" to go to the region to "comprehensively review our efforts" in Iraq. He also began rounds of quiet consultations on the idea from Congress to the State Department, the Pentagon, and private think tanks.

"Frank Wolf is a very creative member of Congress," says David Abshire, a longtime diplomat who is advising the Iraq Study Group.

The reason the group caught on so quickly in official Washington is because, "they're all groping," says Abshire. "Ultimately, they all recognize the seriousness of the situation and want to do the right thing for the country."

(GETTY)

Co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker III and former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton (left), the 10-member group includes retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, former Attorney General Edwin Meese, former Clinton aide Leon Panetta, lobbyist Vernon Jordan, former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Sens. Charles Robb and Alan Simpson. Former CIA Director Robert Gates left the group after Mr. Bush nominated him to be Secretary of Defense.

Launched last spring, the ISG took on a much higher profile this fall, as elections neared and the situation on the ground got worse in Iraq.

"No one paid attention to this until the fall when it became clear that the Republican majority was going to fall and Iraq was the issue over which Republicans would lose," says Ivo Daalder, a senior fellow at Brookings in Washington, D.C.

Wolf says he welcomes the high profile his simple idea has assumed. "I get amused when I think how we struggled to get it done, and now even Senator Kerry is supporting it," he says. "I think the attention will make the report even better."

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[frankly6]

".....because six years of Bush's foreign policy has had the presumably unintended consequences of elevating radicals and theocrats into positions of dominance throughout the region, from Iraq, Lebanon, the West Bank and even, this past week, to the oil emirate Bahrain, where Shiite and Sunni radical Islamists split elections in an upset."

Simply put, the neoconservative geniuses who believed invading Iraq would bolster both U.S. and Israeli interests in fact have accomplished the exact opposite %u2014 handing both military and public-relations victories to their sworn enemies. Similarly, the international movement to restrain the proliferation of nuclear weapons has been struck a possible death blow as a desperate United States may be forced to accommodate Iran's nuclear ambitions, just as it did those of Pakistan.

Robert Scheer

[frankly6]

"As the Bush-appointed and James Baker-led Iraq Study Group has telegraphed, the cooperation of these two pariah states is essential to an effective exit strategy. In reality, this is not so much a change in policy as it is an acknowledgment of a truth-on-the-ground that has been clear since the invasion 44 months ago: Our sworn enemies were the biggest beneficiaries of our overthrow of Iraq's secular dictatorship."

from a CBS opinion peace on this site

[frankly6]

As Bush sees it right now, his biggest problem is how to repackage "stay the course" into another bumper sticker slogan that the American people will buy. His ultimate strategy is to keep Halliburton in Iraq as long as possible.

[marshhendrix]

Yeah, like bush is going to listen to ANYONE opinion other than the one he was hearing when marched thousands of our Brother and Sister Americans off to die for.

The idiot will say that he does not care what those guys say and point to one of his YES MEN who happen to be making millions and millions of dollars killing innocent civilians and American soldiers alike. "See, Cheyney agrees with me, I'm staying the course."

I wish I could find something to admire in gwb, but I just don't find anything to shows me that he has an intellect above a 8th grader.

Please let our fellow American's come home...all of them....now...alive...please, Mr. President.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[getcentered]

"bushrocks1" is as out of touch as the complete idiots that put us in the war in Iraq.

"An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East"
Bushrocks1, what is Israel? It is in the Middle East, is it not a democracy?

"They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one."

First of all the Bush Administration new plenty about what was going to happen if we went to war with Iraq, and with that knowledge what did they do? They sent way to few troops to begin with. When the majority of US war planners said it would take 300,000 to 400,000 troops, we sent only 140,000. Also, when it was time for diplomacy to get support from the world, our President and the most cursory and secretive administration in history took a bullies stance and ignored the opinions of many of our allies.

See, the fools wanting this war in Iraq needed it to begin quickly for POLITICAL REASONS ONLY. If we did not rush into going to war then the dissent in America (which is about half of us, "traitors") would have actually had a voice, and the war in Iraq might have never come to pass.

I WANT FAMILY OF MINE TO COME HOME ALIVE FROM IRAQ. I NEVER WANT CURSORY LEADERS PUTTING MY FAMILIY IN HARMS WAY, WHEN I DON'T KNOW WHY OR FOR DISPUTED REASONS.

Shame on Republicans for their lack of imagination, their poor performance as leaders and their willful ignorance when adapting policies that effect the lives of every American.

[observantx]

President Bush also said that he and al-Maliki agreed %u2026that Iraq should not be partitioned into separate, semi-autonomous zones.

Guess what Fearless Leader. Iraq is already three separate autonomous zones. You have the Kurds in the mountains up north who seem to be making a constructive go of it. There is the Sunni Triangle of Death and the surrounding area to the North West, and you have the southeast half pretty much all to the Shiites.

The sectarian civil war is escalating migration of the Sunnis and Shias to their respective regions seeking some measure of safety. Baghdad is the largest city in the most mixed area of the country and that is where bombing, kidnapping, torture and murder are growing like a malignant tumor.

So it doesn%u2019t matter what you and al-Maliki say. It%u2019s done. You have three distinct regions, two of which are battling it out in Baghdad and the other larger cities in the middle of the country. Nice work guys. Heck of a job!

[rsoxfan1123]

frankly6-good post.

[frankly6]

lestb35


Blame the Iraqis because we invaded them. Blame the Iraqis because we did not send in enough troops to maintain order. Blame the Iraqis because that's what the latest neocon talking points say. But by all maeans do not take personal responsibility. The lack of leadership problem originated in the whitehouse and continues today.

[lestb35]

Wasn't that the plan all along, that we would step down as they stepped up. The problem is they won't or can't step up from what seems like a lack of Iraqi leadership.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[jsilver2th]

Some where over the rainbow...

[frankly6]

This sounds to me like more Republican Rhetoric! Where they talk out of both sides of their mouths and don't say anything different in the end! I hope all American's remember this mess when he wants to start another war!!!!
Posted by grumpas at 09:22 AM : Nov 30, 2006

[frankly6]

These 'wise men' don't have the balls to tell their leader that he IS indeed 'naked'! LOL

The end result is 'stay the course'!

Think, make proposals; but by god, 'stay the course'!

American lives and limbs are expendable to these heartless b@stards; so what if we sacrifice a few more soldier 'sheep' in a god forsaken place?
Who really cares? 'Crazy' Cindy Sheehan? LOL
Posted by Agnim at 11:21 AM : Nov 30, 2006

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[ceekuei]

Junior needs daddy and daddy's friends of the Carlyle Group to help junior out of the mess he has created. This reminds me of children messing up the kitchen and waiting for mommy to clean it up. I wonder whether Mommy Bush has privately put junior across her knees to give him a good spanking or sent to his room without supper. Junior was a disaster waiting to happen, and when the family arranged for him to play in the WH, disaster struck. What a sad sack!

[frankly6]

bush would be smart to take the ISW's recommendation and back his (our) butts out of this. Unfortunately, mr. bush has never been smart enough to act on what all around him are advising. He defies all rational thought and reason...I've never seen anything like it!!! And we still have 2 more years with this guy. God help us!
Posted by meboard at 10:48 AM : Nov 30, 2006

[frankly6]

These 'wise men' don't have the balls to tell their leader that he IS indeed 'naked'! LOL

The end result is 'stay the course'!

Think, make proposals; but by god, 'stay the course'!

American lives and limbs are expendable to these heartless b@stards; so what if we sacrifice a few more soldier 'sheep' in a god forsaken place?
Who really cares? 'Crazy' Cindy Sheehan? LOL
Posted by Agnim at 11:21 AM : Nov 30, 2006