Excerpts from an interview with Rep. Scott Garrett about the Iraq Study Group Report.
Q: What's your reaction to the report?
A: I've gone through portions of it. I'm reading the book now. They put a lot of time and effort into it, and I appreciate they have their recommendations.
I find they make some points that are insightful and probably in accord with the American public and probably the president as well. But some of it is simplistic in analysis and reccomendations. But you can't expect them in one book to come up with an overall strategy.
Q: What do you consider insightful, and what's simplistic?
A: They're on point with something many people have been saying, and that I've been saying. I'm against any long-term commitment and permanent U.S. bases being set up in Iraq. They also have looked at it and realize an immediate withdrawal would create problems not only internally, in the region, but could create problems in the global community for the United States.
They also touched on idea of upping the troop strength and realized that as a long-term solution it would not satisfactorily solve the issue. They cited a general who said increasing in one spot resulted in the enemy engaging elsewhere.
Leon Panetta made a point in the press conference, that to be successful in any military conflict you have to have the public in general agreement behind it. I think with this report here, making findings, we may be able to achieve was Panetta was striking at and have greater consensus.
Q: Consensus about what?
A: To the extent that the point is in concert with my earlier point that we not have bases, which is in contrast to what the administration has been saying.
But portions of the report are simplistic. I don't know how to break it down. Part of the answer is a diplomatic one, which is fine, it's something we can all work towards. But when they say we should be getting the EU and other countries to engage, be part of a support group -- we haven't seen that for some period of time. So we can hope for it, but we probably shouldn't expect it any time soon.
Likewise, engaging in diplomacy. We should always attempt it, but you have to realize, and the report does not go into detail on this, there is continuing evidence Iran has been in some way, shape or form a player in providing personnel and equipment to creating instability in Iraq.
And there's success in the Middle East peace process. We all agree with that, but the devil's in the details. Part of the recommendations in the report is that Israel give up the Golan Heights. There might be a, and I'm being tongue in cheek, a degree of opposition to that. So it may be simplistic as to how we achieve an end result.
Q: What do you see Congress doing with this report?
A: To some extent, I'll be looking to see what the new Congress under Pelosi has as their reccomendations. At this point in time they have their opportunity to lay out a plan, and we are eager to engage in a dialog on that once they present that plan.
Rep. Rangel during the campaign was saying he would not be funding the war.
I would hate to see if Nancy were to buy into Rangel's appproach stop support for funding carte blanche so men are left in harm's way without support for their own safety an security. I'd hate to see them take up Rangel's draconian approach like that.
Q: What will you be doing about Iraq in the new Congress?
A: I'll try to see where funding is going I have not supported building of permanent bases over there. When legislation came along to do that, I fought against such measures. Congress has that role to play.
It also is incumbent on the administration and the White House to respond to the report and say what actions they would take. The president is the commander in chief. This commission was created by Congress to propose reccomendations, but the president is the commander in chief. We have generals on ground running the day-to-day operation and I would give quite deference to the generals on the ground.
Q: So where does this report fit in?
A: It’s a defining of what the problem is and where the answers may lie and also a defining of where the answers do not lie.
================================
Later, Garrett's office issued this official statement on the issue:
"Stability in the Middle East, including Iraq, directly affects the security of the United States. While we will continue to do our best to work with the Iraqi people to secure a stable foothold for democracy in their country; ultimately, the choice of whether or not this democracy will succeed is up to the Iraqis themselves.
"I have a great deal of respect for the distinguished public servants of the Iraq Study Group, and I appreciate their hard work on this difficult subject. Their recommendations show thoughtful consideration that should be taken to heart by both the President and the Congress. I agree with a number of those recommendations, such as rejection of any permanent U.S. bases in Iraq and rejection of proposals to partition Iraq, which would stoke the fires of sectarian violence. And, I am encouraged by their projection that transition to Iraqi responsibility for security could begin in as soon as a year from now.
"I do have real reservations about their recommendation to directly engage Iran and Syria in negotiations. We should continue to seek resolution to the very serious issues we face with both rogue nations, but they have shown no commitment to diplomacy or even discussion with the US on any front. As Sen. Joe Lieberman aptly stated: 'Asking Iran and Syria to help us to succeed in Iraq is like your local fire department asking a couple of arsonists to help put out the fire. These people are flaming the fire.'"
