The "centrist" position on the war in Iraq

[ProSense]

Sunday, November 26, 2006

The "centrist" position on the war in Iraq

This Washington Post article on the inner workings of the bizarrely revered Baker-Hamilton Commission is notable for several reasons, the first of which is that neoconservatives are stomping their feet and whining loudly because they feel that their Great Wisdom and Expertise are being unfairly ignored:

Neoconservatives, who supported and crafted much of the original Iraq strategy, say the panel was stacked against them. Michael Rubin, political adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority, resigned because he said he was a token.

"Many appointees appeared to be selected less for expertise than for their hostility to President Bush's war on terrorism and emphasis on democracy," Rubin wrote in the Weekly Standard. Baker and Hamilton "gerrymandered" the experts only "to ratify predetermined recommendations," he wrote. "Rather than prime the debate they sought to stifle it."

Only two of the 40 experts -- May and former CIA analyst Reuel Marc Gerecht -- are neoconservatives.

Seeking input from the neocons on how to solve the Iraq disaster would be like consulting the serial arsonist who started a deadly, raging fire on how to extinguish it. That actually might make sense if the arsonist were repentant and wanted to help reverse what he unleashed. But if the arsonist were proud of the fire he started and actually wanted to see it rage forever, even more strongly -- and, worse, if he were intent on starting whole new fires just like the one destroying everything and everyone in its path-- it would be the height of irrationality for those wanting to extinguish the fire to listen to what he has to say.

But more notable than the supposed exclusion of neocons (something that should be believed only once it is seen) is this claim about Washington-style balance and "centrism":

The panel was deliberately skewed toward a centrist course for Iraq, participants said. Organizers avoided experts with extreme views on either side of the Iraq war debate.

I'd really like to know what the excluded anti-war "extreme view" is that is the equivalent of the neonconservative desire for endless warfare in Iraq and beyond. The only plausible possibility would be the view that the U.S. ought to withdraw from Iraq, and do so sooner rather than later. What else could it be? Nobody, to my knowledge, is proposing that we cede American territory to the Iraqi insurgents, so withdrawal essentially defines the far end of the anti-war spectrum.

There is nothing "centrist" about a Commission which decides in advance that it will not remove our troops from a war which is an unmitigated disaster and getting worse every day. It just goes without saying that if you invade and occupy a country and are achieving nothing good by staying, withdrawal must be one of the primary options considered when deciding what to do about the disaster.

Even if that is not the option ultimately chosen, a categorical refusal in advance to consider that option -- or to listen to experts who advocate it -- is not the work of a "centrist" body devoted to finding a solution to this war. If the Commission begins with the premise that we have to stay in Iraq and then only considers proposals for how to modify our strategy on the margins, that is anything but centrist. To the contrary, that is a close-minded -- and rather extremist -- commitment to the continuation of a war which most Americans have come to despise and want to see brought to an end.

Snip...

UPDATE: Via Greg Djerejian, who has all you need to know about Michael Rubin's melodramatic protest resignation from the Commission ("James Baker and Lee Hamilton, doubtless, must have been crushed--that the penetrating insights Rubin would have brought to bear are now lost forever"), here is the list of the 40 experts assembled by the Commission (h/t MD).

[sampsonblk]

1. What is a "centrist" position on Iraq???

I still can't figure that out.

[noamnety]

5. I think it means

stay in the center of Iraq.

[wyldwolf]

2. extreme position on Iraq?

Left: Screw 'em. Leave them high and dry.
Right: Screw 'em. Nuke 'em. When the dust clears, colonize 'em.

[lapfog_1]

3. Can't use nukes, that would make it difficult to get the oil

So that's why we spent all that money on MOABs.

The bunker buster nukes are for Iran.

[Solon]

4. Centrist position:

Screw them till they LIKE it!

[wyldwolf]

6. centrist position

Biden's plan: http://planforiraq.com/
Clark's plan: http://securingamerica.com/issues/iraqplan

[Solon]

7. Neither one of those will work in the real world...

The Kurds are NOT interested in staying with Iraq, period, breathing room or no. Sunnis and Shiites will NOT get along that well either. We could have a multinational force that stays in Iraq till 2050, they finally decide to pull out on October 10th, let's say, and by October 11, any representative or democratic government of Iraq will collapse and a 3 sided civil war commences. And this is assuming EVERYTHING goes OK in between the time.

We have two, and precisely two options to rectify this situation. The first is that we need a strong, secular, strongman to take up as dictator of Iraq. Or, and this is a true compromise, split the country in 3 parts, this country is already fractured along religious or ethnic lines, perhaps its time to actually let it split apart. We need two assurances though, first, that Iran does NOT annex the Shia state that arises, and also that Turkey will not invade the Kurds' territory.

There have only been two instances of being able to "spread democracy" after a nation has been conquered, Germany and Japan. Both before and since then, all such attempts have failed. There is no practical way that any stable Democracy will arise from the ashes that are Iraq. Most democratic reforms in nations are most likely to be successful when they are HOMEGROWN, with little to no foreign interference.

[wyldwolf]

8. so says you. So tell me the "progressive" plan with a link so I can check it out

By the way, splitting the country in three parts is the Biden plan.

[ProSense]

9. I believe the piece was referring to the extremes among

decision makers, people who can actually impact policy.

[ProSense]

10. Brzezinski: The Baker Commission ‘Will Offer Some Procrastination Ideas...

Brzezinski: The Baker Commission ‘Will Offer Some Procrastination Ideas For Dealing With The Crisis’

Today on CNN, Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski issued a strong, preemptive criticism of the Baker Commission studying alternatives for Iraq. Brzezinski said that while the commission “will probably come out with some sound advice on dealing with the neighborhood,” it essentially “will offer some procrastination ideas for dealing with the crisis.”

Brzezinski added that “This is a mistaken, absolutely historically wrong undertaking. The costs are prohibitive. If we get out sooner, there will be a messy follow-up after we leave. It will be messy, but will not be as messy as if we stay.” Watch it:

[Clarkie1]

11. Interesting article, thanks for posting. Recommended.

To compose a commission of only those who share the same or similar viewpoint is foolish. Sounds like more of the same to me, simply ratifiying a predetermined outcome.

Edit: imo, the omission of Clark on this commission speaks volumes. They aren't really serious about hearing anything they don't want to hear, still. Either that or they don't want Clark to get the media attention that might bring. It's would be too hot politically, obviously. The administration has already demonstrated it will not put the interests of America before it's own self-interests, most recently by postponing the firing of Rumsfeld until after the election.

I'm not convinced the neo-cons still aren't calling the shots, just adjusting their strategy. They know who their most dangerous opponents are, and it's not Lee Hamilton or James Baker.