Baker's Panel Has 'no Magic Bullet' to End the Agony

The biggest problem facing the Iraq Study Group is the high expectations surrounding its report. The initially obscure panel appointed by Congress in March has lately been treated by the White House as a potential answer to its agony in Iraq. James Baker, the panel's co-chairman, has insisted, however, there will be no "magic bullet" and no simple in-or-out answers. Officials linked with the panel have been calling journalists to steer them away from predictions that it will be ready by the beginning of December, and pointing out that its proposals may sound familiar.

The options

The ISG panel members have been sworn to secrecy, but that did not stop Mr Baker expressing his views when promoting his memoirs earlier this year. He and most of his fellow panellists favour talking to Iran and Syria about Iraq's future. The Bush administration opposes talking to Iran without a guarantee Tehran will end uranium enrichment, as President Bush repeated yesterday. But it has also suggested there may be ways to finesse the impasse, pointing out the US has participated in international organisations alongside Iran. The commission is considering whether a conference should look at broader regional issues, including the future of Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The panel is also looking at various types of troop deployment. Most probably it will suggest pulling US forces out of the urban patrolling that causes most of the casualties and regrouping in bases in Iraq or in neighbouring countries. There is still debate over whether a redeployment should be linked to benchmarks passed by the Baghdad government or used, as the Democrats suggest, to prod that government into making hard political choices. The White House remains opposed to a "fixed timetable" but the ISG is expected to stress that the US commitment to Iraq cannot be open-ended.

Another option, not necessarily mutually exclusive of the other two, is a temporary increase in troops in an attempt to crush Sunni insurgents and Shia militias as a way of giving the Baghdad government a chance to assert its power.

The panel

Almost all 10 members of the panel, five Republicans and five Democrats, are known for bipartisan leanings. They seem to have been picked for their Washington insider status and deal-making skills. Vernon Jordan, for instance, is best known for trying to find a job for Monica Lewinsky in the alleged hope of keeping her quiet. Sandra Day O'Connor, a former supreme court judge, may have been picked for her moderate credentials and her sharp legal mind. Odd man out is Edwin Meese, a right-wing ideologue from Ronald Reagan's administration. He may oppose a softer line on Iran and Syria.

The methods

The panel prefers collegial chats to formal depositions. It looked far beyond the US for answers. Mr Baker had a three-hour dinner with Javad Zarif, the Iranian ambassador to the UN, and the conversation reportedly revolved around the possibilities for US-Iranian conversation. Aware of the high partisan tensions in Washington, Mr Baker and Mr Hamilton are reportedly anxious that a consensus should emerge. Options are being drafted and will be debated later this month.

The Democratic victory last week may help lead to a consensus if it makes the White House more open to compromises, but whether there is general agreement on a recommendation or not, the bottom line stressed by Mr Baker is that there are no good options left in Iraq, just bad options and worse ones.