You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Baker surfaces as key adviser to Bush on Iraq
2006-09-14
President Bush has acceded to his father's urging and has made former Secretary of State James Baker a leading adviser on Iraq.

Administration sources said Mr. Baker, head of the congressionally mandated Iraq Study Group, has been discussing with the president recommendations on an exit strategy that could begin after the November elections. They said Mr. Baker's approach to Iraq differs sharply from that of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
I'm not sure I like this. I've never trusted Baker, even recognizing that he's very good at what he does.
The sources said Mr. Baker has maintained an extremely low profile and slips in and out of Baghdad without fanfare. They said that unlike the elder Bush's national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, Mr. Baker has avoided stepping on the toes of such senior officials as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has been wary of Mr. Baker's access to the president. "The president has understood that he needs a trusted outsider without any personal stake in U.S. policy on Iraq," an administration source said. "Jim Baker also has a lot of clout and credibility on the Hill."

Over the past two months, Mr. Baker has been shuttling to Baghdad where he has been meeting U.S. diplomats, military commanders as well as Iraqi politicians. The sources said Mr. Baker has also been quietly meeting with leaders in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

The sources said Mr. Baker's increasing access to the president comes amid declining confidence in Mr. Rumsfeld. They said that until June 2006 Mr. Rumsfeld consistently reassured the White House and Congress that the Sunni insurgency war would diminish.
Which it will, though not as quickly as we all want.
"Those who sought to join Baker and Bush came from the circle around the former president [Bush]," a source said. "But in this case, there was clear support from Republican leaders in the Senate and House."

One such Republican was Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia. Mr. Wolf said Mr. Baker, who in 2004 was the president's envoy to win debt relief for Iraq, was serving the role of a physician solicited for a second opinion. "What the United States needs on Iraq is some fresh ideas from people able to speak out, and no one is more qualified to do that than Jim Baker," Mr. Wolf said.

Mr. Baker's role has already resulted in quiet agreement by Congress to support the war in Iraq through 2006. On Sept. 7, the Senate agreed by a 98-0 vote to allocate an additional $63 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The upcoming election had nothing to do with that of course, it was all Jim Baker. Ah-huh.
But Mr. Baker is not expected to simply draft recommendations. The sources said the president has been quietly using the former secretary of state to convince key Arab allies to support Washington's strategy in Iraq. They said the most important of those allies is Saudi Arabia, which has been highly skeptical of the administration's policy.

Mr. Baker has been in his post since March 2006 and was said to have urged for a clear exit strategy in 2007.
Which, coincidentially, is about the time we all figured the Iraqi police and army could handle most things themselves. Criminy, I could have given Bush that advice.
At the same time, the former secretary was said to have envisioned a long-term regional and international effort to stabilize Iraq. Last week, the Pentagon reported that 145,000 U.S. troops were in Iraq, the highest level since December 2005.

"It is clear that the president will make his decision based on his own judgment," the source said. "But there are already signs that Baker has become an influence."
Posted by:Steve White

#13  LOL, Anonymoose! Now that is brilliant. Diabolical and Machiavellian. This is the sort of post that I was talking about... dump the paranoia and think like this, LOL. Simply brilliant.
Posted by: flyover   2006-09-14 14:40  

#12  Out of left field: What if he is consulting Baker because Condi Rice might be up for a promotion? Baker would be a shoe-in as a short-term Secretary of State.

Think of it as Karl Rove's crown jewel: one hour after Hillary announces for president, Dick Cheney announces he is retiring, and Bush nominates Condi Rice as VP. Hillary gets pushed back to page 6.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-09-14 14:33  

#11  Baker, Shmaker, this will not end until we kill Iraqis. That's all they understand. They will grow tired of funerals, believe me.
Changing the dining room chairs will not escape from PC war to viscous inhuman war.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-09-14 12:40  

#10  A rational take, NS. I got hung up in the priciple vs. pragmatism thing.
Posted by: flyover   2006-09-14 12:14  

#9  To quote Dave Barry: "This can't be good."
Posted by: xbalanke   2006-09-14 12:00  

#8  I agree with all the comments about Baker.

Who cares?

He got Iraq, not Iran. It's not like there's really a lot he can screw up in Iraq. Sure he'll make sleazeball deal like a donk. Baker is a schmoozer who can get all the parties except Iran to cool their jets about Iraq and buy some calm there, but don't pay too much attention to how he does it. That will open up more running room for dealing with Iran, the real problem. At least, I hope that's the plan.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-09-14 11:24  

#7  The Saudis must be ecstatic - he is their bitch, after all.

What else he is, well, that's rather hard to say in a forum with a sinktrap. Sometimes I think he was born in the wrong era - he would've been a perfect fit in Huey Long's back room. The kind of political whore and horsetrader the Dhimmicrats love, someone they can "work" with. Color me disgusted with Geo41 for, after years of wheedling and suborning his own son's vision, foisting this dinosaur on W. If he has his fingers in any other cookie jars, Iraq being bad enough, then this is one giant step backward.
Posted by: flyover   2006-09-14 09:17  

#6  "They said the most important of those allies is Saudi Arabia, which has been highly skeptical of the administration's policy." Yes, well, we all make mistakes. We should have allowed Saddam to take over the Saudi oil fields, and then made him a deal he could not refuse. After he had tamed Saudi clerics.
Posted by: Perfesser   2006-09-14 09:05  

#5  Baker is not the guy I would have chosen under any circumstances. Zero confidence in the backstabbing leaking grandstanding SOB.
Posted by: DanNY   2006-09-14 04:52  

#4  Classical Liberal,

I hope you're correct because Baker does not instill confidence in me either. He's got a fetish for "stability" and I'd rather not go back to the status quo ante. Even with Saddam gone, it would seem hardly worth one American life if the Region totally backslides.
Posted by: JDB   2006-09-14 03:19  

#3  GWB is playing for keeps in the Middle East. My optimistic take is that Baker's current involvement has more to do with paving the way in region for action on Iran.
Posted by: Classical_Liberal   2006-09-14 01:23  

#2  This fall under the "Be carefull what you ask for" category for the Dems. They wanted a change in direction from Bush, now they will get it and wish Rummy was still calling the shots.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2006-09-14 01:22  

#1  Baker scares the hell out of me. No use for Israel in his realpolitik mideast...
Posted by: borgboy   2006-09-14 00:16  

00:00