Yesterday, December 6, 2006, at 7 a.m., EST, the Iraq Study Group, a coalition of ten democratic and republican politicians, co-chaired by Lee Hamilton, and James Baker, reported on their findings regarding the situation in Iraq, and their recommendations for the future. Lee Hamilton, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives in Indiana, and a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council, was the first to speak in front of the press. His first words were, “The situation in Iraq is grave, and deteriorating.” Hamilton went on to site statistics that indicate the gravity of the situation, such as the 2,900 dead Americans, the 21,000 wounded Americans, and the 400 billion American dollars that have been allocated to the effort in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group is composed of five democrats and five republicans, each with long-standing and decorated careers to our government.

Hamilton went on to say that the Iraqi people are suffering, and that the democratic government that replaced the tyrant Saddam Hussein has been hugely unsuccessful in making the country more secure, in delivering services to its people, and in furthering economic development. Hamilton was unfaltering in his criticism of the goings-on in Iraq, announcing, “The current approach is not working.” Hamilton made it clear that the group agreed with President Bush’s supposed goal in Iraq, which has always been said to be the creation of an Iraq that is self-governing, self-sustaining, and self-defending. But Hamilton added that the group was recommending a new approach to pursuing that goal, a “responsible transition.”

79 recommendations were made in all by the report, as Hamilton’s co-chair James Baker explained, the recommendations ranged in focus from military, political, and diplomatic matters, to oil, reconstruction, U.S. intelligence, training of U.S. government personnel, U.S. budget process, and issues of criminal justice. Each of these 79 recommendations was approved by each of the ten group members, lending to the report the strength and validity of a truly bipartisan and collaborative effort. The three most important of these recommendations, announced the speakers, are as follows;
1. Change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the U.S. to begin moving combat forces out of Iraq.
2. Action by the Iraqi government to “achieve milestones” in terms of national reconciliation, security, and improvement of the daily lives of Iraqis.
3. New and enhanced diplomatic and political action.

Hamilton expressed the collective opinion that, if the Iraqis are encouraged to take control of their own future, the U.S. can slowly and responsibly pull out. Furthermore, our role in Iraq should take the shape of support, not primary responsibility. Both speakers expressed that the Iraqi government will need our help for some time, but our commitment should not be open-ended. Even if the Iraqis falter in implementing active changes, the U.S. should stick to its schedule, and make it clear to the Iraqis that we intend to do so.

As Baker admitted, there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. But this is no excuse to remain complacent with an ineffective plan and futile efforts. The direct message to President Bush was that he needs to send a message to Iraqi leaders that the U.S. will support them as long as they take action to support themselves.

My thoughts on all of this? Hmmmm . . . Well, Bush has been known to ignore recommendations of influential groups before. Can we all say “WMD’s?” So even though Bush has been called out, and the general consensus is that he’s blowing it in Iraq, will the Whispering Wind’s of Change be effective, or do we need a Howling Hurricane, a Screaming Flurry. Needless to say, I am skeptical. What do all of you think? Will the President heed the call?