So what do the neo-cons make of the "Iraq study group" - the much-ballyhooed commission, headed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, and charged with re-thinking American policy on Iraq? Predictably enough - not very much.
The Baker-Hamilton commission is probably not going to report until the new year. But there have been enough leaks about its possible recommendations for the neo-cons to sniff betrayal in the air. The "Weekly Standard" - the house journal of the neo-cons - currently features two pre-emptive strikes against the Baker commission.
Michael Rubin, a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute who once worked for the coalition authority in Baghdad, argues that the Baker commission is only nominally impartial. He regards it as so stacked against the neo-con viewpoint that he resigned from one of its four advisory groups. Rubin is dismayed by the suggestion that Baker will argue for American discussions with Iran and Syria - after all the neo-cons have sometimes urged widening the conflict to target precisely these two countries. Rubin thinks Iran is certain to double cross America and to continue to fuel the conflict in Iraq.

Reuel Marc Gerecht, another fellow of the AEI who is on one of the Baker commission’s advisory groups (and has not resigned - yet), takes a similar line. He argues that a speedy withdrawal from Iraq will not reduce the jihadist threat. On the contrary, jihadists hated America and the west before Iraq - and their will and morale would only be strengthened by an American withdrawal.
The make-up of the Iraqi study group is certainly intriguing. The main panel is not terribly exciting - consisting, as it does, of the members of the bipartisan "great and good" - people like Lee Hamilton, William Perry and Baker himself. But the four study groups are quite intriguing. I would love to be able to post them up here, but the website of the US Institute of Peace - which has the names - is currently down. (Take a look yourself, if you get the chance, and their website ever recovers.)
One name that jumped out at me - and that clearly worries Michael Rubin over at neo-con central - is that of Charles Freeman, a former American ambassador, and the author of one of the most excoriating and bitter speeches on the "Bush doctrine" that I have come across. Here’s a taste:
"That was, of course, before we suffered the trauma of 9/11 and underwent the equivalent of a national nervous breakdown. It was before we panicked and decided to construct a national-security state that would protect us from the risks posed by foreign visitors or evil-minded Americans armed with toenail clippers or liquid cosmetics. It was before we decided that policy debate is unpatriotic and realized that the only thing foreigners understand is the use of force. It was before we replaced the dispassionate judgments of our intelligence community with the faith-based analyses of our political leaders. It was before we embraced the spin-driven strategies that have stranded our armed forces in Afghanistan, marched them off to die in the terrorist ambush of Iraq, and multiplied and united our Muslim enemies rather than diminishing and dividing them. It was before we began to throw our values overboard in order to stay on course while evading attack. It was before, in a mere five years, we transformed ourselves from 9/11’s object of almost universal sympathy and support into the planet’s most despised nation, with its most hateful policies."
But - take a look at the whole text  - it’s really worth reading.
Still - a word of caution. It’s possible that there is simply too much excitement surrounding the Baker commission. By the time it reports in January, a lot will have changed. And remember, the commission was originally created by Congress, not by the Bush administration. It’s perfectly possible that if it recommends a strategy that Bush regards as "cut and run", the president will simply reject it. The neo-cons pre-emptive strikes may not be in vain.

October 26th, 2006 in US politics | Permalink