Iraq Panel Proposes Major Strategy Shift

Congressional Democrats embraced the report's call for a change in tactics in Iraq, and Republicans -- with at least one notable exception in presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) -- generally praised the report, as well. But in a sign of the potential roadblocks ahead, Democratic aides said privately that Democrats want to make it clear that Bush still "owns" the Iraq war, and that if the panel's recommendations fail, they want the blame to fall on Bush, not on them.

"The president has the ball in his court now," said incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). McCain offered a toughly worded statement, questioning the usefulness of reaching out to Syria and Iran, and saying that the link between an Arab-Israeli peace initiative and violence in Iraq "seems tenuous at best."

The most dramatic departure from U.S. policy -- and almost certainly the most controversial part of the report for the Bush administration -- is the panel's call for a "diplomatic offensive" with a region-wide approach to stabilizing Iraq.

The report concluded that the major Middle East flashpoints -- Iraq, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iran, Lebanon, the need for political reform, Islamic extremism and terrorism -- are all "intricately linked." It recommended actions on problems that have been intractable for more than six decades.

Recommendation 16, for example, called for Israel to return the Golan Heights to Syria, with U.S. security guarantees. In exchange, Syria should agree to peace with Israel, end meddling in Lebanon and Iraq, end aid for Hezbollah, help persuade Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist and intervene to win the release of captured Israeli soldiers.

The report called for the new strategy to be launched by the end of December. The first step is to immediately organize an International Support Group bringing together all of Iraq's neighbors, most notably Iran and Syria, as well as all the Persian Gulf states, Egypt, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and the European Union.

"In diplomacy, a nation can and should engage its adversaries and enemies to try to resolve conflicts and differences consistent with its own interests," the report said. At the news conference, Baker acknowledged that the limited contacts with Iran already indicate that Tehran is not "chomping at the bit" to hold talks on Iraq.

A senior Iranian official, who was not authorized to comment publicly, said he was disappointed with the report. "The only carrot they offer is no regime change," he said. "That's a helluva way to ask for help. That's not a carrot to offer Iran."

Another major point of the panel's report is the need to set more specific goals for the Iraqi government on national reconciliation, security and governance. The members said the United States should make clear that continued economic, military and political support will be conditioned on Iraq's performance in relation to the milestones.

The panel also recommended shifting the focus of the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq from combat to training -- a process the administration says has already begun. The Iraqi army should take more responsibility for security, but while the process is underway, the United States should embed substantially more U.S. military personnel in Iraqi units for advice and staff assistance, the panel said.

Such a mission could involve 10,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops, compared with the 3,000 to 4,000 now involved in training and advisory roles. The panel said that, for a variety of reasons, the United States should not make an "open-ended" commitment to keep large numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq, including the need to give Iraqis an incentive to make the political changes necessary to quell sectarian violence.

Rejecting the idea of sustained increases in troop levels, the panel said U.S. forces are stretched so thin in the world that it doubted the troops would be available -- while also questioning the very premise. "While it is clear the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is moderating the violence," the panel members said, "there is little evidence that the long-term deployment of U.S. troops by itself has led or will lead to fundamental improvements in the security situation."

Staff writers Charles Babington, Glenn Kessler and Josh White contributed to this report.