Iraq Study Group — a political facade
The Baker-Hamilton study group will not produce any new thinking. The U.S. military has analyzed and gamed every course of action, including cut and run. For that matter, it gamed “non-intervention” in Iraq as well.
What Baker and Hamilton provide is political cover for Democrats. Our plan has been a sound one — build Iraqi security and political institutions to the point US and coalition forces move to “strategic overwatch.” John Murtha suggested we move our troops to Okinawa– that’s a little bit far, but hey, he’s going to be the new House majority leader so we will be entertained with similar Murtha “quips” for the next two years. Be prepared. 2009 is the earliest date I see strategic overwatch beginning — and that assumes Pelosi and her clan don’t go with Murtha and Cindy Sheehan.
Which is where Baker-Hamilton comes in. Baker-Hamilton is an academic committee. I guarantee the John Kerry-level strategic geniuses who participated in the study have radcially differing views of the issues, different definitions of problems, and a spectrum of mutually-incoherent policy prescriptions. (Like I said, it’s an academic committee.) My bet is the Baker-Hamilton “consensus” will ultimately reflect Jim Baker’s and Lee Hamilton’s two-man consensus (in other words, truth in packaging unusual in government and academia).
If we are lucky, the Baker-Hamilton magic show will drop a scarf over the top hat and with a the ”poof” of a New York Times headline produce a “unifying” policy of words that will let the Democrats join the war, despite the howls of their blogosphere nutsroots.
Then the military will continue to do what it’s been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and the new Iraqi government will continue to learn by doing — and in the ordeal of war that will mean learn by bleeding, suffering, and sweating.
UPDATE: The Washington Post is impressed. Okay, not by much. The article mentions the possibility that the study will help promote a political consensus – a warfighting political consensus.
Same car, same road, NEW DRIVER, same destination — Iraq Security Forces able to provide security. Rummy’s Kansas speech spoke about more US troops doing more training — look for less patrols, not more, except perhaps in Baghdad. The planned withdrawals, as Iraqs stand up, will become “phased withdrawals” and Dems will claim success at changing direction. Will the Dems go for replacing aid, which supports corruption, with municipal loans? They should. So should the Reps.
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 11/13/2006 @ 11:46 am
I concur with your belief the ISG will allow the Democrats to engage; I hope we are correct. If we are wrong, I suspect the Democrat majority will be short-lived. Polling questions asking how many are dissatisfied with our presence in Iraq are seldom followed up with WHY the participants are dissatisfied. There are probably a large number who support our presence who are also dissatisfied with the strategy and/or tactics of accomplishing our goals. That leaves room for a lot of people who are dissatisfied with Iraq who will be extremely upset if we abandon Iraq by pulling out too soon or too rapidly.
Comment by E. T. Page — 11/13/2006 @ 12:42 pm
It will provide cover… but for whom? I don’t think Pelosi will join in. She’s already made that clear by backing John Murtha. But it will help Harman and Hoyer, Democrats who do take the war seriously, beat back primary challenges - and they will probably back the President. Bush only needs 15 House Democrats to break his way on the war to keep the funds going. Harman and Hoyer can probably help to provide that with some room to spare. Bush arguably has just enough for the Senate with the 49 Republicans plus Lieberman. That gives Cheney the tiebreaker.
Comment by Harold C. Hutchison — 11/13/2006 @ 1:40 pm
ironic that it took winning an election before the Dems will sign up to fight the war on terror. if indeed they will, which is still to be seen.
Comment by kurt chebatoris — 11/13/2006 @ 3:28 pm
So the Baker-Snowcroft-Gates “realists” are going to provide cover for the Cheney-Bush-Rice pre-emption doctrine for another 3 plus years? Really? Isn’t it likely (given Baker’s recent public comments) that the Baker-Hamilton consensus will advocate open (re)engagement with the Iranians and Syrians? Perhaps the diplomatic solution is “the cover” which allows current troop levels at status quo. Given the situation on the ground and the population movement/displacement along sectarian lines, it’s hard to see that happening. from the WaPost: yesterday: ‘Baker, who seems intrigued by the idea of gaining greater assistance in Iraq from U.S. adversaries, had a three-hour dinner in New York with Javad Zarif, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations. Zarif hosted the dinner at his elegant ambassador’s residence. Baker made clear that he was not negotiating for the United States but that the commission wanted Iran’s input and suggestions. He specifically asked about the possibilities for cooperation between Tehran and Washington on Iraq, according to Iranian sources.” today: “The study group is expected to address the issue of whether dialogue with Iran and Syria would aid the war effort. The Bush administration has said it would consider such talks if the group recommends it. British Prime Minister Tony Blair planned today to call on the international community to engage Iran and Syria to advance the peace process in the Middle East, the Associated Press reported.”
Comment by Kevin — 11/13/2006 @ 3:58 pm
>Baker made clear that he was not negotiating for the United States but that the commission wanted Iran’s input and suggestions Similar to how Kerry “was not negotiating for the United States” with the North Vietnamese in Paris. Well, certainly not “for.” Probably “against” would be more accurate.
Comment by Korla Pundit — 11/13/2006 @ 4:19 pm
“that the Baker-Hamilton consensus will advocate open (re)engagement with the Iranians and Syrians?” Would they be that foolish?
Comment by jows — 11/13/2006 @ 4:41 pm
Baker/Hamilton will cause the new Democrat majority to effectively “Stay the Course” simply because the new Democrat majority leadership can successfully add: The victory margin for the tightest 15 House races that went Democrat total ~100K votes, which means that just over 50K votes going from the Democrat candidate to the Republican (that’s 1.6% of the votes cast in those 15 closest district races) would have retained GOP control of the house. In the Senate it’s even narrower, VA needed 3,616 GOP votes to change the outcome of the VA Senate race and retain the Senate; Montana only needed 1,424 GOP votes to keep the Senate for the Republicans. The Democrat leadership knows how precariously narrow this victory was. They can’t gain any more votes by going further left, so if they want to retain power then need to pick up more voters from rightward of their current positions - especially since they won’t have the Republican-controlled congress to run against next time around. This means no video of helicopter evacuations from the roofs of the green zone. The Democrats will bear any burden, pay any price to not annoy a single centrist voter between now and 2008.
Comment by Mike — 11/13/2006 @ 5:03 pm
Hi, You write: “For that matter, it gamed “non-intervention†in Iraq as well.” That would be interesting to read. Do you have a link? thanks
Comment by John McIntyre — 11/13/2006 @ 5:23 pm
From what I understand, Baker wants to buy off the Iranians. We guarantee their peace and serenity, give them lots of goodies and they give up the nukes. Same old failed policies. Get out of Lebanon by giving Lebanon to Syria. Where did this commission come from anyway? I see no good from this effort. Democrats have to establish some credibility on national security, and they know it–at least some do. As it is they have almost none, and cannot successfully remain in power without any.
Comment by stark — 11/13/2006 @ 7:06 pm
I have been to the Iraq study Group website and have read articles written by some of the advisors on the Expert Working Groups. I find the articles fact based and rational and now think the ISG is a good thing; after initially thinking otherwise, based on MSM/Blog hysteria regarding the ISG. Here is a compendium of what I read: Removal of troops from Iraq will not reduce the violence. Premature withdrawal/redeployment will have worldwide catastrophic results. Neutralization of the insurents should be the main focus; the militias will disband when the insurgent problem is taken care of. The best outcome will be a negotiated settlement with the insurgents, but this will only occur when they are convinced of our resolve. Nation-building works, is necessary, and is cost effective, provided that adquate resources (military and financial) are invested.
Comment by JP Phish — 11/13/2006 @ 7:06 pm
pelosi and crew will take cover wherever they can for the next two years. sure there will be alot of jumping up and down but they will not be doing anything and i mean anything, that will put at risk their chance for the clinton white house. if hillary wins then the gloves will come off–not before. the anti war left will be treated like the black electorate at election time, as the help. the baker commission will give them the cover they need for the next two years.
Comment by patrick neid — 11/13/2006 @ 7:21 pm
It seems to me that the Sunnis are killing us, which is causing our resolve to drop, but the civil war we are truly worried about is about Sunni/Shia and Shia/Sunni killings. How do we get the Sunnis to stop killing our troops so we can focus on stopping the civil war? A negotiated settlement would be smart, but as the previous poster said, they need to be convinced of our willingness to stay OR made to worry about if we leave. I think keeping the Shia militia around might be in our short term interest. Then again, I suspect the Sunnis still fighting us must be suicidal on many levels, because if we leave prematurely they will be cleansed and they will not get any oil. They’ll end up like Vietnam now - victorious but wondering how rich and free they’d be today if they’d only “lost” to the USA. See Korea, Taiwan, etc.
Comment by Aaron — 11/13/2006 @ 8:39 pm
Aaron said: “I suspect the Sunnis still fighting us must be suicidal on many levels” In another venue about 3 years ago I started a thread who’s title (sorry, Austin! It had to be done!) “These guys are F8cking crazy!” Nothing has happened since to make me change my mind. The capability for rational thought does not seem to exist throughout much of the tribalized Muslim world. Suicidal insanity seems to be not just common but, to all intents and purposes, the mindset of choice! I do not believe such attitudes can be negotiated with. The best example of this is the Arab/Israeli conflict. Time, after time, after time the Arabs get their collective and singular asses kicked and keep coming back with the same old weak tactics, cruddy equipment, non-existant supply and maintenance capability, obsolete aircraft, lousy training and miserable leadership. Someone said once that a good definition of insanity is failing at something and doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result no matter how many times you fail. Perfectly illustrated in this conflict and endemic in the culture. Just f*cking crazy.
Comment by AF Dad — 11/13/2006 @ 9:30 pm
I checked out the ISG website a couple of weeks ago and saw that there aren’t any Iraqis on the panel itself (one or two are in the expert working group). But then it occurred to me that this group isn’t about solving Iraq’s problems, it’s about solving America’s problems in Iraq. And I’m not so sure that those two things are one and the same. Probably not a brilliant insight but it hadn’t occurred to me in quite that way until I looked at the list of ISG members. I am pleased to hear that Mr. Baker’s dinner with Iran’s ambassador went so well. I wonder if he remembered to bring the kosher chocolate cake and a Bible.
Comment by Bennett — 11/13/2006 @ 11:01 pm
[…] That sound you just heard was my temporal artery exploding. Naturally, Instapundit agrees; I shouldn’t have to explain why I don’t. He also links to this piece by Austin Bay, who has made a name for himself as a columnist who happily parrots the military’s sometimes questionable politics. The Baker-Hamilton study group will not produce any new thinking. The U.S. military has analyzed and gamed every course of action, including cut and run. For that matter, it gamed “non-intervention†in Iraq as well. […]
Pingback by The Conjecturer » Fear Mongering — 11/14/2006 @ 12:08 am
Excuse me, Conjecturer, but Austin Bay is no parrot for the military or their politics. He is independent enough to frequently criticise military policy and to take his own road in the face of conventional conservative thought. I applaud his insistence on thorough research and thoughfulness. I grant you, he is often happy.
Comment by Scott S — 11/14/2006 @ 10:38 am
Austin Bay has no patience with academics, which is understandable; he is probably, like most in the military, a ESTJ type of personality; a get-it-done-yesterday type. The academics may be more INTP types; deep thinkers and brilliant out-of-the-box strategists. Conflict of these two types is inevitable, but both are needed; the INTP must design the course and the ESTJ must tread the course.
Comment by JP Phish — 11/14/2006 @ 3:07 pm
[…] Courtesy of Austin Bay: […]
Pingback by NoisyRoom.net » Blog Archive » Iraq Study Group — a political facade — 11/14/2006 @ 3:34 pm
For JP Phish, I believe it is worth noting that COL Bay does teach college level courses at a minor State University located in Austin, TX. I’m not sure if that makes him an academic or not. ED NOTE: It appears Mr. Phish hasn’t read my bio. Academics? Full of baloney. Scholars? Alas, we’ve far too few.
Comment by Bill Gross — 11/14/2006 @ 3:54 pm
There are those on this thread who suggest that others may be academics. Please, let there be no name-calling!
Joking aside: If “INTP academics” are so smart, why are they so often wrong? And why should “ESTJ types” tread the course rather than the “INTP academics”?
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 11/14/2006 @ 9:21 pm
In my experience, INTP type academics are infrequently either brilliant or capable of out-of-the-box thinking. The military, much more so than academia, attracts and encourages the brilliant and the out-of-the-boxers. The stictures of the service channels those qualities in focused, results oriented performance. Academia has always surpessed both brilliance and out-of-the-box thought. Those possessing either resort to becomeing mavericks in order to express themselves or degenerate into useless, fuzzy thinking pedants. If you don’t believe me, just examine the graduates of each system. Academics would design a course that was a circular maze leading back to the beginning, was incorrectly mapped and then would cast apersions on the military types required to tread it when they burst the boundaries and headed off in the right direction in spite of every ostacle deliberately placed in their way. That being said, I enjoyed my time in college, did very well and even respected some of my professors. I would have given a lot to have had an instructor like Col Bay who had successfully done something rather than merely written something.
Comment by Scott Sterling — 11/15/2006 @ 1:11 pm
Iraq needs mercenaries for peace As Venezuelans know so well, it is impossible to build a real democracy upon abundant oil. Democracy is about creating a level playing field, and, therefore, if you want a real chance at democracy in an oil-rich land like Iraq, you need first to distribute their oil revenues equally among all their citizens. For Iraq, distributing their oil revenues upfront, in cash, would carry a special significance since not only would it help to solve the problem of their oil being located only in some parts of the country, but it would also foster an additional bond of national identity among all the Iraqis, be they Sunnis, Shiites, or Kurds. The possibility for each citizen to receive perhaps a couple of thousand dollars a year would promote interest in reaching normality. The World Bank could be the perfect candidate to help implement a very transparent sharing of the oil revenues for Iraq. In a world where so frequently mercenaries are used for wars, why don’t we help Iraq contract their own citizens, using their own money, to be mercenaries for peace? Per Kurowski A former Executive Director of the World Bank (2002-2004) http://teawithft.blogspot.com/
Comment by Per Kurowski — 11/15/2006 @ 2:47 pm
Can we stop all the Meyers-Briggs silliness? There are those of us (like Austin) who can excell in both the military and academe. Some of us (like me) did not excell in the military as well as Austin did but have done well enough in academe to work for the uniformed services. Finally, there are those who never served in uniform but are academics working in DoD today. The point is that any military establishment worth is weight in salt (or any other substance) needs all three types to function effectively in an intellectual sense.
Comment by Rich — 11/15/2006 @ 3:47 pm
I just completed a program management course, one of the courses offered by the Defense Acquisition University. All the students took the Myers-Briggs test, as do students of all classes that take the course. The senior instructor, a USAF LTC, told us that 80-90% of students in all classes are ESTJ, due to the fact that almost all are military. This has more to do with their interests and methods for making decisions, than brain power. I know Army and Navy officers who are Phd; the Air Force runs a school, the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) at Wright-Patterson AFB, which is accredited to confer the Phd, and most of its Phd’s are awarded to military officers. The point I was trying to make was that it is not unusual to have conflicts between the types. Each has to have understanding of the other, and when they work together more can be done. I know this from experience. I was aware of COL Bay’s Bio and probably should have been more clear. He derides academics, and yet teaches courses and has a Phd, he probably, rightly, does not equate “academic” with a person’s vocation. A person can be an academic without a high school diploma, and Phd’s are not resigned to be academics. I imagine COL Bay will readily admit that some of his fellow professors drive him up the wall; that he gets along far better with military people. Also, I did not intend to malign the military. ESTJ’s are in the military and getting things done because that is what they like. It has nothing to do with limitations; they like making decisions, detailed planning, working with fellow soldiers. In summary COL Austin is definitely smart, but he has no patience with people who enjoy spending time with there own thoughts, creating ideas and new ways to do things (academics).
Comment by JP Phish — 11/15/2006 @ 7:35 pm
“Iraq Study Group Needs Far Broader & More Inclusive Remit” The recently convened, entirely USA-membership Iraq Study Group is charged with coming up with recommendations for the worsening situation in Iraq, and by extension, for the escalating war on terror generally… recommendations that will directly effect all major world powers that have been supporting the USA for the last 1/2 decade in its failing endeavors. Despite not having membership on this group, nations such as the UK, will be expected to unquestioningly follow and/or assist in implementing the ISG’s eventual recommendations. By denying its major allies’ any direct participation in the ISG’s structure + any legitimate role in its deliberations and deciding on recommendations, the USA is grievously narrowing the scope and worsening the quality of the group’s work- inviting dysfunctional and unworkable recommendations. The closed, arbitrary ISG process is symptomatic of one of the main flaws in the developed world’s prosecution of the unfortunately named war on terror over the last 1/2 decade-> the USA’s unwillingness to enable any significant role of its partner nations regarding planning policies and strategies for this. An Iraq Study Group co-chaired by a UK bureaucrat and/or politician(s)- with other major international players having membership on the group- could only enhance and improve the group’s pool of experience, function and proposals deliberated. Most importantly, a multi-national type of structure could only increase the appropriateness/workability of the group’s eventual recommendations- not to mention improving international confidence in these recommendations. If indeed, (as many bureaucrats/politicians are now admitting and asserting) Iraq’s problems- and their solutions thereof- are directly connected to other nations in the region and farther a-field-> how can the Iraq Study Group make likely-to-succeed, functional recommendations, without as part of their work, assessing and evaluating nations like Iran and North Korea, and as a result making recommendations for how the developed world ought to interface with them? In addition to making submissions to the Iraq Study Group as it is presently constituted, the UK ought to be assertively proposing a more internationally representative structure for this group, as well as a much broader terms of reference. Restructured or not, an emphasis on improved communication, both implicit and explicit, by the developed world to Muslim nations, and peoples generally, needs to be made a central objective of any recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Mr. Roderick V. Louis, near Vancouver, BC, Canada, ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
Comment by Roderick V. Louis — 11/16/2006 @ 10:14 pm
ISRAEL CALLING: The IAF is now preparing to attack installations in Iran. Our bumbling Olmert, no less than the bumbling Levi Eshkol in his day, is closeted with generals going over maps and flight paths in preparation for another extremely high-risk Jewish war of no choice. The question is, how are Bush and Blair spending their evenings. Debka has been reporting the approach of four of five US battle formations into the Arabian Sea, but there is absolutely no talk anywhere of imminent war, not in the western press, not on the internet; a complete silence. On the contrary, statements from the US centers of power, changes in personel, all point to more diplomacy and concessions - and some absolutely unbelievable shit from Blair. Is Washington (and London?) planning a sneak attack on Iran, Suez style, but this time with the roles of the US and France reversed? And if an attack is in the making, involving thousands of individuals at the decision-making level as it must, will the NYT and WaPo actually keep their mouths shut about it? Whatever the Dems and State Department have to say about the prosecution of the land campaign in Iraq, I am betting that all good Americans understand that this is the moment of truth. I am betting that Iran’s goose is cooked. And if that is the case, then there is hope for the free world God Bless America.
Comment by John Krivine — 11/20/2006 @ 7:35 pm
What are the “worldwide catastrophic results” the commission warns about? Whatever they are, we better get prepared for them because the goals of the Bush administration (and the ISG) are not achievable without a massive increase in US troops, which I don’t see happening.
Comment by Bob Agans — 12/7/2006 @ 11:06 am