Marble Composition

No Magic Bullet, No Silver Lining

As I was rooting around blogostan, as I tend to do, a theme popped up. That theme would be: even though it's being hailed as some kind of savior in the media, The Iraq Study Group won't have much to add or offer us in the way of policy changes in Iraq. And why is that? There are no good options left. Let's do a little roundup.

From David Kurtz at Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo:

It has become the consensus view, crosses party lines, and seems to be based in part on the assumption that anything is better than the current Iraq policy and its chief implementer, Don Rumsfeld.
[...]
If the first step in solving a problem is admitting you have a problem, then we may be at that first step. Our long national denial may be over. But admitting you have a problem doesn't in and of itself solve the problem. And right now Iraq is a problem begging for solutions.

Go read the meat of that post.
Kevin Drum mined the essence of the media dance from the National Review:

You are sure to hear time and again how Baker et al. have given the Democrats cover to push even harder for withdrawal. And why do they need this "cover"? Well, because they are going to be attacked by Republicans. Now, every time some GOP spokesman tells Tim Russert that the Democrats want to cut-and-run, Russert can respond that even the Baker Commission wants withdrawal (turn on your televisions; this is already happening). And why does the Baker Commission have such "credibility"? Because the press has been telling us that it does. What a beautiful circle.

Foreign policy expert Juliette Kayyem offers this:

I know we all should be eagerly awaiting the results of the Baker-Hamilton report, right? The press is giddy with the notion that this will be the cure for what ails us: an insolveable problem in Iraq, a way forward between the "stay the course" and "cut and run."

Let's be serious here, cause it is war. We, including Democrats, are setting ourselves up for some closure that doesn't exist. As Jim Zogby has written, we're all "waiting for godot." Remember, he never arrives.

And finally, Michael Hirsch from Newsweek sums it up:

...and [Washington] anxiously waits for the sage Jim Baker to fix the mess made by the Bush family’s black sheep, who also happens to be president of the United States. The headline is: "Will Bush Talk to Iran and Syria about Iraq?" Apparently that's a big part of the Baker plan, judging from the long, convivial dinner he had the other week with Iran's ambassador to the U.N., Javad Zarif, which according to an informed source was all about Iraq.
[...]
It’s easy enough to blame the departing Donald Rumsfeld for this, as he leaves town like the biblical goat cast into the wilderness. But let's not forget that Rummy, for all his sins, wanted to pull out of Iraq quickly after the spring 2003 invasion and leave things to the Iraqi Army. It was Bush, with his vague ideas of a deeper transformation communicated just as vaguely to civil administrator Paul L. (Jerry) Bremer III, who opted to dismantle the Iraqi Army and Baath Party. That committed Bush to a long occupation, but he never bothered to check whether his Defense secretary was following through with the troops and resources that were needed (Rummy wasn't). If Barbara Tuchman were alive, she'd be adding another chapter to "The March of Folly." Sorry folks. Iraq is broken, and all the Jim Bakers and all the Bob Gateses can't put Humpty Dumpty together again.

With Cheney isolated because of the departure of Rumsfeld, let's see how this plays out. Any way you slice it, it's a national nightmare.

posted by FuzzFinger @ 11/15/2006 08:43:00 PM