KEY POINTS:
WASHINGTON - The Iraq Study Group will recommend that United States forces withdraw from combat over the next year and focus on training Iraqis, offering President George W. Bush the outlines of an exit strategy.
CNN reported last night that the ISG also calls for a comprehensive Middle East peace plan in a broader regional approach to stabilising Iraq.
It stopped short of recommending a specific timetable for withdrawal but did stress that Iraqis had to take on a larger share of the military role.
"The primary mission of US forces should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi Army," CNN quoted the report as saying.
The Washington Post said the panel recommends that Bush press the Iraqi Government to meet specific goals for improving security or face the threat of a cut in US economic and military support.
Robert Gates, a former member of the ISG until Bush nominated him last month to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Defence Secretary, said yesterday that the US was not winning in Iraq and dismissed the prospect of quick solutions.
"It's my impression that, frankly, there are no new ideas on Iraq," Gates told his successful Senate confirmation hearing.
The group led by Republican former Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic Representative Lee Hamilton is expected to call for a regional conference on stabilising Iraq that could lead to direct US talks with Iran and Syria, an option that the White House has opposed.
Gates said the soaring violence threatens to erupt into an even more chaotic regional conflict if a solution is not found rapidly.
Gates, striking a more humble note than Rumsfeld ever managed, said he would consult widely to try to turn around the situation in Iraq and "that all options are on the table in terms of how we address this problem".
He added: "What we are now doing is not satisfactory." Asked directly if the US was winning the war, he replied: "No, sir."
He later said he thought the US was neither winning or losing. Bush, asked in late October whether the US was winning, replied: "Absolutely, we're winning. As a matter of fact, my view is the only way we lose is if we leave before the job is done."
Gates, 63, admitted he was not sufficiently knowledgeable about the situation in Iraq and one of his first jobs would be to visit US commanders on the ground.
He stressed that he intended to give independent advice to Bush and that he had not come to Washington to "be a bump on a log".
Asked when a withdrawal of US troops might come, he replied: "It depends on the conditions on the ground under which troops were withdrawn. Our course, over the next year or two will determine whether the American and Iraqi people and the next President of the US will face a slowly but steadily improving situation in Iraq and in the region or will face the very real risk, and possible reality, of a regional conflagration."
An integral question remains whether events on the ground in Iraq are now, in effect, outside US influence, a position argued by several military experts. As such, a central recommendation of the Baker commission will be the involvement of countries such as Syria and Iran to try to seek a regional solution. That is a course British Prime Minister Tony Blair in talks this week will press on Bush, who has so far been unwilling to pursue such a route.
Another reality is that, given both the level of violence inside Iraq and the mass of conflicting sectarian loyalties, there are no easy or certain fixes for bringing an end to the bloodshed.
Michael O'Hanlon, an analyst with the Brookings Institution, told AP: "There is no obvious correct policy in Iraq. What matters is getting a better policy in Iraq."
Yesterday Gates, a former CIA director who was once investigated for his role in the Iran-Contra affair, admitted as much when he said of the Baker report: "The list of tactics, the list of strategies, the list of approaches is pretty much out there. The question is, is there a way to put pieces of those different proposals together [in a new way]?"
TURNING FULL CIRCLE
Colin Powell
After telling the UN assembly in 2003 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, the former Secretary of State admitted in May 2004 the claims were "inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading".
Paul Bremer
The former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq admitted in January 2006:
"It [the invasion] was a much tougher job than I think I expected it to be ... we really didn't see the insurgency coming."
Zalmay Khalilzad
Contradicting the usually upbeat rhetoric, the US Ambassador in Iraq said in March: "We have opened a Pandora's box". And unless the violence abated, Iraq would "make Taleban Afghanistan look like child's play".
Richard Perle
Regarded as one of the intellectual godfathers of the war, Perle changed tack in November, admitting that "huge mistakes were made" in the invasion. "The levels of brutality we've seen are truly horrifying."
Ken Adelman
Last month, the noted neoconservative said: "The national security team ... turned out to be among the most incompetent in the post-war era. Not only did each of them have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly."
Donald Rumsfeld
A memo from the hardline former Defence Secretary revealed this week that he had been looking for a change of tactics. "In my view, it is time for a major adjustment ... what US forces are doing in Iraq is not working well enough ... "
- INDEPENDENT, REUTERS
