Baker/Hamilton Group Acknowledges Reality, Avoids Hard Decisions

If anyone here is interested in reading what James Baker and his merry band of consensus-makers have to say on Iraq, the following item has a detailed summary of today's news...

AP: Panel: Bush Iraq policy 'not working' (Full, official report- here.)

On the issue most readers of this site probably care about the most (when are we getting out?), the report is hardly bold, rather just suggesting "withdrawal of most U.S. combat troops" by- surprise!- early 2008. Of course, it adds that should be "subject to unexpected developments in the security situation". Like what, a war? Good grief.

Other suggestions were as expected-- talk with Iran and Syria, express to Iraqi government that our help is conditional on their actions, no open-ended committment with tons of permanent bases, but don't leave yet, broaden efforts to work towards larger Mideast peace (Israel/Palestine), etc.

Two general things can be agreed upon about this report... a) Given the media hype, it's too underwhelming and noncommittal, and b) The President will continue to do whatever he wanted anyway, if merely using cherry-picked morsels from the report to justify his predetermined goal of dragging the war out until he is out of office. There's no policy here; like the President, it's a lot of talk. Unlike the President, however, it's at least intelligent talk, but it lacks the focus on 'how' and 'when' and the forcefulness we need.

The third thing that can be said is that none of their findings (ie. that the administration policy is "not working") are shocking revelations. The results of last month's elections show that the American people didn't need the Bush family 'consigliere' to tell them that. As AJ at Americablog notes, "all this does is catch up Official Washington Consensus Opinion with the rest of the country". Sen. Feingold has a similar sentiment in a letter about the report, adding that (in neglecting to see the effect Iraq has had on our broader national security strategies) it is another "regrettable example of 'official Washington' missing the point". People didn't vote last month for more platitudes; they voted for an exit strategy and some real actual change.

All of their recommendations are based on the assumption that there is still some way to salvage this mess (if only a little). I don't think any of the members-- not even the Democratic ones-- considered the possibility that we have lost and that the mess is beyond repair (on our end)... because that would mean making some hard decisions on how to proceed from there.

I hope/pray the new Democratic majority will be bolder than the Iraq Study Group.

The real plus of the report: It will continue to move the war debate away from White House talking points.

Ultimately, I think Salon's Tim Grieve sums up my feelings on all of this when he notes that the "vague mishmash" of recommendations in the report are "probably not the fault of the group's members; they're not the ones who decided to launch a war of choice with no real plan for winning it. We are where we are now, and there is no good way for this story to end."

Finally, while we in America discussed this today, 10 more U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq.

[PS- Just to note that the Bush cultists are still sailing down denial, conservative blogger extraordinare Glenn 'Instapundit' Reynolds is holding a 'blogger symposium' so that the 101st Fighting Keyboardists can make their own findings. Their recommendations? More wars and take over the Middle East. Sounds like the NY Post editorial page to me. Elsewhere, one satirist chronicles Mr. Reynold's statements over the years on Iraq. It'd be pretty amusing to read if so many people didn't take them seriously.

UPDATE: The Senate has confirmed Robert Gates; Sens. Santorum (R-Pa)- ! - and Bunning (R-Ky) voted against.

UPDATE #2: Was prescient about the NY Post- see Wednesday's cover. Cultists 'til the end.]