• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Analysis: Bush, Blair Vow to Push Forward

Council on Foreign Relations

December 7, 2006
Prepared by: Michael Moran

“I believe we need a new approach” to Iraq, President George W. Bush said after meeting his most important Iraq War ally (CNN), British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Yet while acknowledging the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations as “very constructive,” both also insisted upon a victory there which would, in Blair’s words, give the region’s peoples “the same possibilities of democracy that we hold dear in our countries.”

Adherence to this lofty ambition contrasted with the more utilitarian approach of the long-awaited Iraq Study Group (ISG), which a day earlier described the situation in Iraq as “grave and deteriorating.” The ISG studiously avoided the words “democracy” or “victory” in 142 pages of policy recommendations. Its emphasis was on stabilizing Iraq and beginning to shift combat responsibilities away from U.S. and British troops and onto Iraqi security forces.

Responding to skeptical questioning, Bush insisted he and Blair appreciated that “it’s bad in Iraq.” He also insisted their joint objective there is a “free government” which can “sustain, govern, and defend itself.” But, perhaps most importantly, he consistently made it clear the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations, while welcomed, would not dictate policy as he awaited separate reviews underway from the State Department, the Pentagon, and the National Security Council. “It’s certainly an important part of our deliberations and an important part of our discussions this morning,” Bush said. “I read it, and our guest read it.” The Wall Street Journal, whose editorial page often has reflected administration views, also downplayed it as “some bipartisan strategic muddle ginned up for domestic political purposes.”

Read the rest of this article on the cfr.org website.

Copyright 2006 by the Council on Foreign Relations. This material is republished on GlobalSecurity.org with specific permission from the cfr.org. Reprint and republication queries for this article should be directed to cfr.org.