The Iraq Study Group (ISG), also known as the Baker-Hamilton Commission, issued its report two weeks ago. The President’s neoconservative policy leaders have incrementally rejected the report’s conclusions. These leaders include Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. Some neoconservative foreign policy “experts” reject the conclusions on ideological grounds, while others reject them on more practical grounds. For these reasons, it appears that the report’s conclusions are unlikely to be adopted.
But the ISG report has provided one significant accomplishment. It created an irrefutable fact set from which policy debates can occur. For the first time in three and a half years, Americans are united in their understanding of what’s going on in Iraq. Smokescreens issued by ideologues on all sides have drifted away and dissipated: Media underreporting “the good things” in Iraq, media acquiescence in not showing the dead and injured American soldiers returning home, Dick Cheney propaganda such as “the insurgency is in its last throes”—all these characterizations are debunked. Even the president has finally acknowledged that his project in Iraq is not going well.
The result is a palpable change in the kitchen table discussions across America (at least in homes where such conversation is still allowed). On the topic of Iraq, the facts can no longer be written off. There is a consensus that the situation is bad and we are losing the war. While most of the specific facts do not arise in the conversation, the consensus has changed the discussion from this argument over facts—is there a problem, are we winning or losing, is it bad or good—to a discussion of how we should solve it. In other words, the rhetorical debate over whether we are winning or not is over. Citizens cannot demonize each other for being stupid or uninformed anymore. The ISG report pushed America beyond its self-inflicted blindness and significantly altered this debate. This change is the report’s greatest and very valuable contribution.
I pick up where Greg leaves off. What about Congress? I have no faith that the pResident will be doing anything significantly different. The American people elected a Congress to provide the long lost check and blance.
How will congress use this check and balance? Will they provide oversite? Will they require the President to define the mission, provide clear goals for military engagement, and have a plan which includes contigencies for when underlying conditions change?
How will we as the American people hold our Congress accountable to these basic conditions neccessary for putting any life at risk -- American or Iraqii?
Yes there certainly is a change in the dialogue on Iraq, particularly in the media. But the response of the Bush Administration to the Iraq Study Group confirms the perception that Bush believes himself to be an "elected dictator", one who is only accountable to himself. The utter denial of reality by this gang borders on madness. If Bush truly is descending into madness, he could be capable of almost anything. As a lame duck, Bush now may feel completely unrestrained in his actions and unless Congress grows a spine there may be little we can do to stop him. The jury is still out on Congress...
Have a nice day!
The check and balance is the needed ingredient--no question about it. Norm Ornstein's book, The Broken Branch, is all about this.
Reasonable people can be very concerned about Bush at this point. One picture of the man includes one trying to fight with his own father demons--a fight that led him to Iraq in the first place--combined with a messianic view of his role in history, as Seymour Hersch has documented pretty well. Add to that the lame-duckness and the sense that he is completely unrestricted in his actions since Cheney is not running for president, and you can spin together some very frightening scenarios of a man coming unglued at the seems who also holds the cards of fate for millions of people.
Congressional oversight is one thing that can change this. The other is the American people. The rhetoric, the discussion, the reasonableness of the people will stand in his way, as will the press, if they are willing to ask the tough questions. It becomes a lot harder to engage in craxy activities if the people are reticent.