I strongly disagree with you on this. No, we shouldn't play some guessing game as to which options the ISG will choose, but we should have serious discussion about those options under their consideration. Unfortunately, Baker will not be releasing the report until after the midterms, even though our direction in the Iraq war is clearly the most important pre-election topic of debate. It's probably better for people to speculate about the contents of the ISG report to stimulate a discussion of our options instead of just battling the framework of "stay the course" v. "cut and run." And though I don't hold much trust in the NY Sun, the two options referred to as "Stability First" and "Redeploy and Contain" seem to advance the discussion considerably and may very well be supported by at least some of the members of the ISG commission. I would like to see analyses of the viability of these two strategies, preferably before the election.

Posted by: Tim at October 15, 2006 02:32 AM | Permalink to this comment

my primary interest in the ISG is seeing what euphemism Baker and Hamilton manage to come up with for "cut and run".....

(events do seem to have overtaken them already, what with the Iraqi parliament approving of a "federalization" plan that will accomplish what Biden (among others) have been suggesting... splitting Iraq into three. )

Posted by: p.lukasiak at October 15, 2006 02:34 AM | Permalink to this comment

"my primary interest in the ISG is seeing what euphemism Baker and Hamilton manage to come up with for "cut and run"...."

Strategic redeployment?

Posted by: tomw at October 15, 2006 05:35 AM | Permalink to this comment

It's probably better for people to speculate about the contents of the ISG report to stimulate a discussion of our options

Our options are "whatever Bush wahts", or "impeach Bush".

Ujnless we get a congress that's ready to impeach Bush, our reimaining option is "whatever Bush wants".

Posted by: J Thomas at October 15, 2006 02:18 PM | Permalink to this comment

i think commenters might be missing the point here some. my point, at least, is that people like Frum are trying to preemptively discredit the ISG's work product, mostly b/c they are petrified some of the recommendations might contemplate engaging w/ Iran and Syria in a bid to enlist others in the neighborhood to help stabilize that country (the horror!). So based on thinly sourced drivel, to use that word again, Frum quotes the NY Sun to the extent it makes it looks the ISG is basically going to totally ditch Iraq democratization as a goal, and cozy up with Tehran and Damascus. Bastard realists at it again--staving off the glorious neo-con project if only we had the gumption to go into Iran and arm Japan w/ nuclear capability (see Frum's NYT oped I blogged earlier). Silly stuff, just like these attempted cheap drive-bys to discredit the ISG. As I said, people should cool down, be patient, and wait for the actual report (I happen to think it it necessary it be published after the elections, otherwise it would have become a total political football, and I presume Democrats on the ISG like Hamilton, Panetta, Vernon Jordan etc agree) . As for Luka, I suppose "redeploy and contain" could be read to serve as semantic word-play that sounds better than "cut and run", but again, can't we all wait for the report to be issued before preemptively trying to discredit it (my plaintive, and doubtless unrealistic, Rodney King-esque cry for this Sunday....)?

Posted by: greg djerejian at October 15, 2006 05:25 PM | Permalink to this comment

The ISG is a work in progress. It's conclusion will be an ad hoc thing that fits the moment of its release, designed to make the best of it for domestic political purposes. Any so called policy it recomends will be like dust in the wind as within weeks the situation will have moved on.

Is there no Bush dirty laundry which Baker won't clean up? What exactly makes all these people, Baker or Powell for instance, enbrace a role of abject subservience and loyalty as of that to a king in days of yore. But not to a king however but a second rate erstwhile political dynasty, yet they call themselves Americans.

Posted by: rapier at October 15, 2006 05:47 PM | Permalink to this comment

Anyone ever see the epic (and long) film Gettysburg? As Longstreet says in that movie: Not retreat, sir, redeploy.

Sometimes you lose wars. We'll never see a stable, democratic Iraq that is a reliable ally in the war on terror. Well, we won't see it for a generation.

Sometimes it won't work. Awareness of that is as crucial as anything else.

Posted by: Chris at October 16, 2006 01:04 AM | Permalink to this comment

It's an interesting balancing act. On the one hand, Baker's promise to bring some adult supervision is designed to keep rational members of the Republican coalition on the reservation. On the other, the Administration is telegraphing rejection of anything that departs from the previous policy -- which ought to keep the kool-aid set in the coalition. The inherent contradictions can be worked out after the election.

Or, if things look really bad wrt turnout of the rationals, more can be leaked from Baker Nov. 2-5.

It's pretty good play of a weak hand.

Too bad all the people who've spent so much of the last 25 years talking about morals and values see no problem at all with the concept of soldiers dying to preserve Mr. Hastert's job, or to advance Mr. McConnell.

Posted by: CharleyCarp at October 16, 2006 01:38 PM | Permalink to this comment

Pardon the open expression of cynical disbelief, but given the Bush 43 Adminstration's well-documented history of blatant manipulation of facts/interpretation/public opinion in the run-up to the Iraq war, what assurances should anyone with half a brain accept that the ISG's "recommendations" for its presumed "endgame" will be anything but the usual combination of whitewash, blame-shifting, studied optimism, and a carefully-worded endorsement of whatever policy James Baker has already decided will make the Bush regime look the best?

President Bush's purported vow to "accept their (ISG's) conclusions" leads me to believe that the fix is already in: having staked so much of his already tattered reputation on the public persona of the steely-eyed "Decider", bravely defending the Homeland against the Heinous Terrorist Threat To Our Life And Freedoms, it seems unlikely that he would suddenly change course or start relying on outside counsel: UNLESS said course-change is already determined: and the blue-ribbon Commission report is merely intended to provide a prestige-laden cover for policies that FearLess Leader has already Decided on.

Sorry Greg, nearly six years of having to deal with the incumbent crew of ideologues, ass-kissers and partisan hacks who make up George W. Bush's Administration ought to leave any thinking human cynical and suspicious in contemplating any of these cretins' Machiavellian manipulations when it comes to foreign policy. And especially with regard to Iraq.

Posted by: Jay C at October 16, 2006 02:56 PM | Permalink to this comment

"I happen to think it it necessary it be published after the elections, otherwise it would have become a total political football."

Who's to say it won't be equally politicized after the election? And why the tendency to withhold information from voters out of fear it may influence the election? I think these critiques and new approaches should be laid out for the public before we choose our candidates. Maybe it will open some eyes.

Posted by: Tim at October 16, 2006 08:35 PM | Permalink to this comment

Who's to say it won't be equally politicized after the election?

If it comes after the election there's a possibility that some reality may influence it.

Before the election there's no question it will be entirely politically motivated and will have no shred of reality.

I don't have a lot of hope for it since a bigger election is only 2 years away and they need to get ready for that.

Posted by: J Thomas at October 17, 2006 03:53 PM | Permalink to this comment