Baker Commission to call for “gradual pullback” of U.S. troops
Allahpundit

Just posted at the Times. The report won’t be delivered to Bush for another week but “people familiar with the panel’s deliberations” say they’re going to recommend withdrawal “relatively soon” but without a firm timetable. ...

... I’m going to read it through now. Update coming.

I'll go read it to and put an excerpt below the fold. Then I'll still be watching for the full report to be released to the public so we can see what it really says.

Iraq Panel to Recommend Pullback of Combat Troops
By David E. Sanger and David S. Cloud

WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 — The bipartisan Iraq Study Group reached a consensus on Wednesday on a final report that will call for a gradual pullback of the 15 American combat brigades now in Iraq but stop short of setting a firm timetable for their withdrawal, according to people familiar with the panel’s deliberations.

The report, unanimously approved by the 10-member panel, led by James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton, is to be delivered to President Bush next week. It is a compromise between distinct paths that the group has debated since March, avoiding a specific timetable, which has been opposed by Mr. Bush, but making it clear that the American troop commitment should not be open-ended. The recommendations of the group, formed at the request of members of Congress, are nonbinding.

A person who participated in the commission’s debate said that unless the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki believed that Mr. Bush was under pressure to pull back troops in the near future, “there will be zero sense of urgency to reach the political settlement that needs to be reached.”

The report recommends that Mr. Bush make it clear that he intends to start the withdrawal relatively soon, and people familiar with the debate over the final language said the implicit message was that the process should begin sometime next year.

The report leaves unstated whether the 15 combat brigades that are the bulk of American fighting forces in Iraq would be brought home, or simply pulled back to bases in Iraq or in neighboring countries. (A brigade typically consists of 3,000 to 5,000 troops.) From those bases, they would still be responsible for protecting a substantial number of American troops who would remain in Iraq, including 70,000 or more American trainers, logistics experts and members of a rapid reaction force.

As the commission wound up two and a half days of deliberation in Washington, the group said in a public statement only that a consensus had been reached and that the report would be delivered next Wednesday to President Bush, Congress and the American public. Members of the commission were warned by Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton not to discuss the contents of the report.

But four people involved in the debate, representing different points of view, agreed to outline its conclusions in broad terms to address what they said might otherwise be misperceptions about the findings. Some said their major concern was that the report might be too late. ...

Read the whole thing, but don't forget what it is you're reading. First four politically motivated low-lives who can't keep a government secret leaked selected portions of the report to two al-NYT reporters to create the impression they wanted to create, then the al-NYT reporters chose which portion of the leaked information to pass on to the public to create the impression they want created. Good luck guessing what's in the actual report based on the information you have.

***

Spinning
Greyhawk

Here comes that new direction:

[...]

That sounds like a 360-degree about face to me.

Meanwhile:

The U.N. Security Council on Tuesday unanimously renewed the mandate of the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq through the end of 2007, granting a request from the Baghdad government.

Guess we won't be seeing this soon: ...

***

From Allah's update (see link above)

“It is neither ‘cut and run’ nor ’stay the course,’” one source told the Times. Right, which is way both sides will hate it.

The military end recommends that roughly half the troops in country redeploy “soon,” hopefully starting sometime next year, either to bases elsewhere in Iraq or the Middle East or all the way home. Which of the three it ends up being will obviously depend on how hairy things are six months or so from now. The other half would stay behind and embed with Iraqi troops in support roles and as instructors, and some would comprise a rapid reaction force. Quote:

[I]t was the military recommendations that prompted the most debate, people familiar with the deliberations said. They said a draft report put together under the direction of Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton had collided with another, circulated by other Democrats on the commission, that included an explicit timeline calling for withdrawal of the combat brigades to be completed by the end of next year. In the end, the two proposals were blended.

That’s not a war plan, it’s a deal. How many Iraqi troops do they think are going to hang around waiting to be trained if all-out civil war begins between Sunnis and Shiites? If you’re not going to send American forces after the militias in earnest then you’re abandoning Iraqis to their fate whether or not you’re still physically there on the ground with them. It’s the ultimate manifestation of war by half-measures — almost literally, as it turns out. As for this:

A person who participated in the commission’s debate said that unless the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki believed that Mr. Bush was under pressure to pull back troops in the near future, “there will be zero sense of urgency to reach the political settlement that needs to be reached.”

Maliki was stoned three days ago in Sadr City. The sense of urgency is practically embedded in his skull. What, precisely, would the vaunted political settlement accomplish at this point, though, without a military settlement as a precondition? The Sunnis in parliament can’t compromise with Shiites so long as the center of gravity within their sect lies with the jihadis; likewise the Shiites vis-a-vis al-Sadr. If they managed a settlement, they’d have no way to enforce it. Until the militias are cleared away, nothing that happens within the government will mean a thing to anyone outside the green zone. And with half the U.S. troops in the country heading out, the odds of clearing those militias out are close to nil. But then, addressing that wasn’t really the point. This was the point:

Commission members have said in recent days that they had to navigate around such declarations, or, as one said, “We had to move the national debate from whether to stay the course to how do we start down the path out.”

They moved it. Congratulations.

So there’s the military side. What about the diplomatic side? Is it as bad as we’ve feared?

It is. ...