What the Iraq Study Group doesn't recommend

In the press conference this morning, James Baker made a point of emphasizing what the Iraq Study Group (ISG) did not recommend in its report.

Here's what was ruled out:

• Staying the course. Given that the report is subtitled "The Way Forward—A New Approach," this one is a no-brainer.
• Increasing U.S. troop levels. In the words of the ISG report, "increased deployments to Iraq would ... hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world," and in any case they are not likely to be much help. Instead, the ISG calls for a five-fold increase in trainers for the Iraqi military and police. Although there may be a transition period as units are shifted from a combat to a training role, the overall number of U.S. forces in Iraq should decline significantly overall by the first quarter of 2008. 
• Partitioning Iraq as recommended in the Biden-Gelb plan. Baker said that "devolution could not be managed on an orderly basis" because the boundaries between ethnic regions are confusing.
• Withdrawing precipitously. A quick exit could lead to a "bloodbath" in Iraq or even "a regional war," in Baker's view.
• Linking the Iranian nuclear program in talks over Iraq. The nuclear issue "should continue to be dealt with by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany," according to the report. Baker noted during the question period that Iran was helpful in Afghanistan. If the Iranians view a stable Iraq as similarly in their interests, they may be willing to come to the table even if they aren't "chomping at the bit" to do so—but their nuclear program should be left out.
• The words "victory" and "civil war." Baker said that these terms had become too "political." Instead of "victory," the ISG report views "success" as the goal. In fact, though "victory" appears three times in the text, in each case it refers to the dark prospect of an al-Qaeda propaganda triumph in Iraq.