Apparently the best place to learn about a complicated political and military problem like Iraq is on Washington DC’s golf courses (Vernon Jordan) and in the Supreme Court (Sandra Day O’Connor).

The Commission’s proposals are a complete let-down; I can’t say I expected them to pull a rabbit out of the hat. But if the basic consensus is leave, then a blueprint for leaving should have been offered, hopefully coupled with some face-saving measues of exemplary violence against insurgents and their supporters, including Iran and Syria. Instead we got mealy-mouthed nonsense and wishful thinking.

Bill Bennet made a point I hadn’t even noticed until now, the utter dearth of military men on the committee, and the members’ very “insiderish” commitment to process and collegiality, even at the expense of a positive outcome of this war:

Who are these commissioners and what is their expertise in Iraq — or even foreign policy? Ralph Peters has made the point, “Washington insiders pretend to respect our troops but continue to believe that those in uniform are second-raters and that any political hack can design better war plans than those who’ve dedicated their lives to military service.” The entire report is contemptuous of the military, spoken of as pawns on a chess table, barriers, observers, buffers, and trainers. Never as what they are trained to be: the greatest warriors in the world. Would it have been too much to ask that one general, or even one outspoken believer in the mission from the get-go, be on this commission?

I’ve heard again and again — at the press conference and on subsequent interviews — variants of “this is how a commission should work in Washington,” “this has been great bi-partisanship,” “it’s too bad we can’t operate this way more,” “if any message is to be sent it’s the message that five Republicans and five Democrats of goodwill sat down since March and put together a remarkable document.”

This is the triumph of the therapeutic, where bipartisanship — a hug across the aisle — has become a higher value than justice. The crisis of the house divided has been inverted; we no longer are worried about the crisis but the House, the moral, the good, and the just take a backseat to collegiality. Does history really give a hoot about bipartisanship? Who cares whether they are getting along? The task is to do the right thing, especially in war. But, when relativism is the highest value, agreement becomes the highest goal, regardless of right and wrong. And, woe to those who disagree, they will be sent whence they came — the outer reaches of “extremism.” This is the tyranny of the “best people” today’s equivalent of the Cliveden set.

Seriously, Baker, Perry, Gates (when he was on), and Engelberger belonged on this group. But God forbid they put on someone like Col Hammes or Gen. Van Ryper, both major experts on counter-insurgency. Maybe someone like Fouad Ajami, who knows a bit about Iran and Shiism. What a joke. And worse than it being a joke is that so many of us waited with baited breath for these “wise men” to save us from ourselves.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)