They Rise Once Again to Their Nation's Rescue

Sounds almost too heroic to be true, doesn't it? But that is the kind of praise deserving to the Iraq Study Group, and particularly its leaders, Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton.

Let us recall first the yeoman service they have given us, and recently, too: Baker in the committee for electoral reform with Jimmy Carter (http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2005/09/carter-baker-electoral-reforms.html), and Hamilton with Kean, Sr. in the 9/11 Commission. I have nothing but praise for both prior efforts, and it is to our collective shame that we have not done more with them. Both were also successful efforts to conspicuously display bipartisanship in conception and execution.

Neither of them got too far with the Bushites, but that's all over now. The nation has wearily turned the page. Dubya will pay dearly for attempted lip service this time. Which is not to say he wouldn't try it.

Baker and Hamilton have delivered on their purpose to provide a sensible bipartisan agreement with all particulars agreed to unanimously. The statement represents a bold departure from current strategy, and one that is, again, sensible in all its principal recommendations. Not guaranteeing success, it still pursues the combination of the highest probability of success along with some appreciable gain from "success".

Baker has usually been a trustworthy adversary to us, respected as we opposed his causes. On the other hand, Lee Hamilton has been a personal favorite of mine for over 30 years. My uncle was one of Hamilton's principal political allies in the old days in south-central Indiana in the 60's, and I have followed his career with interest since then. He has consistently shown judgement and maturity in his legislative work, which focused on America's role in world affairs. For his long-term role in Congress, particularly as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the House during the key period, I would give him a hefty slice of the credit which tends to go exclusively to Reagan and Bush I for our ultimate victory in the Cold War. He was not a rubber stamp, though; Hamiltonian foreign policy would have shown more aversion to military adventure than our elected Presidents have.

The Iraq Study Group formulation bears a striking resemblance to the Consensus Democratic position that I outlined 15 months ago--except, of course, that I proposed it as a partisan stance: http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com/2005/08/consensus-democratic-position-on-iraq.html. Boiling Baker-Hamilton down, I'd summarize that they would complete whatever military missions remain (focusing on training and other mentorship--I don't see much about reconstruction) in 2007 and focus on withdrawing combat forces in 2008, while trying to open dialogue with Iraq's neighbors. Kind of obvious stuff, but still a lightning bolt because of what it represents: all parties telling the Emperor his buff bod's in the buff.

What has happened here is that the Democrats have reaped the electoral benefit of their less-than-fully-enunciated Iraq position, and now it becomes bipartisan. In the milieu of foreign policy development, that's already a success. Just as I don't begrudge the Republicans' latching onto it at this point, I don't resent the Democrats' failure to articulate what we were thinking; we are all anti-Bushites now (even many of the neocons).

Even the Bush Family Friend. Now, if we could only get the dog (and the Duck; ahem, that's "Dick") aboard. Then we could actually accomplish something in the next two years.