By Brigitte L. Nacos
As Michael Abramowitz and Glenn Kessler report in today’s
Washington Post, “neoconservatives, who have been the most ardent
supporters of the Bush administration since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, are
angrily reacting to the Iraq Study Group Report. Richard Perle, one of the neoconservatives
who pushed for the Iraq war in the first place, characterized the report as “a monumental
disappointment” and its recommendations as “either wrong or of no consequence.”
Last week, the front page of the New York Post showed James Baker and Lee
Hamilton, the ISG’s co-chairs, as “Surrender Monkeys” and thus put them into
the “cut and run” camp. In today’s New York Times, columnist Frank Rich
calls the members of the Group “sunshine boys” (never mind the female member Sandra
Day O’Connor) because in his view their report and recommendations do not
reflect the whole reality of the Iraqdisaster. As Rich sees it, “The
members of the Iraq Study Group are all good Americans of proven service to
their country. But to the extent that their report forestalls reality and
promotes pipe dreams of one last chance for success in this fiasco, it will be
remembered as just one more delusional milestone in the tragedy of our age.”
So, what are we to make of the Iraq Study Group Report? Is it the work of
surrender monkeys, sunshine boys, or a panel that deserves far more credit?
After reading the slim Vintage Books volume, I concluded that the recommendations, if implemented, would not turn things magically around in Iraq—and probably not stop the slide into complete chaos. The Report does not pretend that this will happen but clearly states up front, “There is no guarantee for success in Iraq.” Neither strengthening the Iraqi military and forging political unity as the ISG recommends nor deploying more U.S.military troops as Senator John McCain and other hawks demand are realistic prospects. And while far more promising than media-diplomacy, traditional person-to-person diplomacy is no guarantee for success either. President Bush rejects negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are state sponsors of terrorism. Indeed, they are. But James Baker has rightly pointed out that the U.S.negotiated with its enemies—the Soviet Union and China—during the Cold War. Why not now with Tehran and Damascus?
David
Broder writes in today’s Washington Post, “Agree with Bush's policy or not,
there is a theory of history -- and of political science -- behind it. You may
label it as neoconservative, but that does not denigrate it.” Theories are
tested and either proved right or wrong. In this case, the neoconservative
theory behind President Bush’s policy has not worked out, to put it mildly.
Most Americans agree on this. Frank Rich is harsh on the Iraq Study Groups
“disingenuous tack. Its account of how the country Mr. Bush called a “grave and
gathering danger” in September 2002 has devolved into a “grave and
deteriorating” catastrophe today is unsparing and accurate. But everyone except
the president knew this already…”
If not everyone—the majority of Americans knew already. But
many did not dare to say so for fear that they would be accused of being unpatriotic,
siding with terrorists, belonging to the “cut and run” crowd. The ISG Report
assures that these labels have lost the bite they never should have had (forget
the New York Post’s “Surrender Monkeys”). To be sure, the bipartisan Study
Group was not prepared to go as far as Rich who wrote in today’s column, “The
actual reality is that we have lost in
Iraq.” But by leaving no doubt that
the American-led coalition is not winning in Iraq, the Group prepares Americans
for what Rich considers a given and, just as important, paves the way for
rigorous public debate.
In this respect at least, the Iraq Study Group has provided an important public service.
Comments