December 11, 2006
Iraq Study Group Response
:Washington was ablaze this week with the release of the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s findings on how to improve the situation in Iraq. Democrats and Moderate Republicans lined up to lavish praise of the ten wise men that have given us a “New Way Forward”. And despite the excitement, there is very little in this report that gives much hope for the future of Iraq. Not only does the report speak to a “grave future,” it provides few substantive realistic proposals. I will address these flaws in the next couple days; I first wanted to address the current critics of the report.
There is plenty to criticize in this report – lack of boldness, lack of a coherent overall strategy, and lack of honesty in the true difficulties in getting things back on track – all of which have been attacked. Ironically, these attacks have come from leading neoconservative thinkers.
Richard Pearle, a Reagan-administration defense official who strongly supported the invasion said, “The report is a monumental disappointment… The recommendations are either wrong or of no consequence. There is no magic bullet, but in their desire to find something, they found the wrong things.”
Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon aide and now a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute said, “Sometimes realists have to deal with reality. Iran and Syria will press to exploit every advantage they have.”
And Kenneth R. Weinstein, chief executive of the conservative Hudson Institute said that “It’s preposterous, period.”
Of course, the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s findings are not what really got this group of neoconservatives mad. What really angers them is that there were only two neoconservatives among the 40 or so experts that briefed the Commission. Apparently that was not enough. Again, Michael Rubin, “Many appointees appeared to be selected less for expertise than for their hostility to President Bush’s war on terrorism and emphasis on democracy… [the Commission] gerrymandered [experts] experts to ratify predetermined recommendations. Rather than prime the debate they sought to stifle it.”
The neoconservatives may be totally right in the specifics – the Commission may be wrong (I’ll argues as much this week) and they may have been left of the Commission – but they are wrong on the overall picture. The Commission really shouldn’t have had a single neoconservative on the briefing board. It really makes no sense to have their input.
For one, the President has endorsed their vision of the world and he met with the Commission. He is in the best position to articulate that vision and his views were well represented. Thanks to the President, the Commission never really considered an immediate withdraw despite large evidence in support of such a move. In addition the Commission was to address alternative paths to victory. It is hard to see how having the architects of the war as chief experts helps to provide a path other than the one we are currently on.
Truthfully, though, what’s concerning to me is that there were even two neoconservatives on the Commission staff. It would be as if a big group got together for a study group in College that was dominated by one person. The group later receives its test grades and found they all failed. Come the next test, I guarantee, that the group will not invite or listen to the person that dominated the last conversation. Unfairly, after all that person may have some good thoughts to add to the discussion for the next test. But that person was responsible for your failure on the last test and you would be a fool to listen again.
Likewise, it would be foolish to give any credence to people like Rubin, Weinstein, or Pearle. They failed this nation. They believed that we would be greeted with flowers and that the oil would pay for the invasion. They still believe that permanent bases are needed to take care of Israel and put pressure on Iran. While full responsibility is on the President, the neoconservatives have a large share of the bloodshed and failure on their ideas. And for that, pardon me, if I do not care if they feel that they are now not being listened to – don’t we all wish that we hadn’t listened to them three years ago.
On October 20th, 2008 at 8:48 am , wow gold argued that:
We have been an ebay power seller and paypal confirmed seller of wow gold for years.We offer wow gold, warcraft gold, we have an outstanding wow gold experience.