More Thoughts On That Fancy Study Group

One more point I would like to add about the Iraq Study Group is that not one of its members opposed this war. Every member was someone who supported the invasion and the failed policies of the past few years... until the national concensus said 'no more' and then Congress got them all together to explain reality to the President.

Here are some people who the Study Group did not interview:

Al Gore, September 2002: “I am deeply concerned that the course of action ... with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century.”

Barack Obama, now a United States senator, September 2002: “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”

Representative Nancy Pelosi, now the House speaker-elect, October 2002: “When we go in, the occupation, which is now being called the liberation, could be interminable and the amount of money it costs could be unlimited.”

Senator Russ Feingold, October 2002: “I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion... When the administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the administration’s motives.”

Howard Dean, ... February 2003: “I firmly believe that the president is focusing our diplomats, our military, our intelligence agencies, and even our people on the wrong war, at the wrong time. ... Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.”

After all, why talk to the people who predicted accurately how it all would turn out?

Glenn Greenwald notes why this is so damaging:

What matters most -- really exclusively -- is that this Report (in the eyes of the Beltway media and related types) has become the defining position of the Center. And the Report unmistakably endorses our ongoing occupation of Iraq, and emphatically rejects the notion of withdrawing any time soon.

We just had an election where Americans repudiated this war and made clear that they want to withdraw. Yet somehow, within a matter of weeks, Washington power circles were able to shoo that election result away like the annoying mosquito that it is and supplant their own pro-war judgment as the "mainstream" view to which all serious people, by definition, pledge their allegiance.

When 2008 comes around and we still have between 130,000-150,000 troops occupying Iraq (at the cost of $8 billion per month) -- and another 20,000 or 30,000 American soldiers are dead or maimed and a few hundred thousand or so more Iraqi civilians are dead -- we can look back at this moment when the Washington Establishment, yet again, blocked the path of withdrawal.

In summary: This report gives everyone an excuse to delay the inevitable while Washington sits around and 'discusses' everything for the next year or so. It's the status quo disguised as a change.

Sen. Feingold echoes those sentiments, calling the report a "Washington inside job", and adding that "The way to win a war against global terrorist networks is not to keep over 140,000 American troops in Iraq indefinitely... The growing threats we face in places like Afghanistan and Somalia are every bit as important to our national security as Iraq. Until Congress and the Administration recognize that, we will only perpetuate the deeply misguided policies that got us into Iraq in the first place."

Americans, of course, are increasingly fed up with all of this:

Americans see no easy exit from Iraq: Just 9 percent expect the war to end in clear-cut victory, compared with 87 percent who expect some sort of compromise settlement, according to the latest AP-Ipsos poll.

The numbers evoke parallels to public opinion about the war in Vietnam four decades ago. In December 1965, when the American side of the war still had eight years to run, a Gallup survey found just 7 percent believed it would end in victory.

Dissatisfaction with President Bush's handling of Iraq has climbed to an all-time high of 71 percent, according to the AP-Ipsos survey, which was taken as a bipartisan commission was releasing its recommendations this week for a new course. Just 27 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of Iraq, down from his previous low of 31 percent in November.

When the story of this war is written years from now, no one will remember or remark upon this report. All they will remember is, like Vietnam, the political leaders refused to admit errors and prolonged the war to save face while a confused public got increasingly angry. The big difference with Vietnam is that LBJ's disaster would only hurt Vietnam. GWB's disaster has the potential to fuck up more an already fucked up region.

If politicians are okay with this, I wish them luck in 2008. They're gonna need it.

[PS- Yet another no-shit headline: "Bush ignores report's criticism of Iraq war handling" (AP)

The Iraqi President didn't care much for the report either. Josh Marshall looks at why.]