Who the Iraq Survey Group did not meet?

[Mass]

They did not meet with the Iraqi ambassador.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/2265

Who's talking to the Iraq Study Group?
Home » blogs » Mike Boyer
Tue, 11/14/2006 - 11:18am.

Iraq-study-group The Iraq Study Group has released the list of experts and officials it met with in order to gain insight into the situation in Iraq.

A quick look at the list seems, sadly, to validate the conclusion reached by Michael Kinsley in today's WaPo that those hoping that the commission will come up with some creative, miracle solution to the mess in Iraq are likely to be severely disappointed.

In fact, aside from a few Iraqi government officials and Pentagon generals, it doesn't appear that the commission has spoken with anyone whose views are not widely available in the op-ed pages of the New York Times and Washington Post.

The list is notable for its exceptions. Here's who you will NOT find on the list: Khalilzad

1. Amb. Zalmay Khalilzad, perhaps the one U.S. official who has addressed the Iraq debacle with some candor and foresight -- and certainly the one official history will look kindly upon.

2. John McCain, Chuck Hagel, and John Kerry, three of the U.S. Senate's most notable veterans of combat. This one is mind blowing.

3. Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, two key architects of the war, one a former dean of one of the most prestigious IR schools in the country.

4. Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher. The views of Team Clinton don't appear very welcome.


5. Henry Kissinger, the dean of the foreign-policy establishment.

6. George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The former commanders in chief (one of whom actually won a war and flew 58 combat missions in WWII) remain on the sidelines.

7. Fouad Ajami, Shibley Telhami, Bernard Lewis, Ray Takeyh, Kanan Makiya, and other notable scholars on the Middle East. This commission appears as isolated from the academy as the Bush administration is.

Three people who did make the list: Bill Kristol, George Will, and Thomas Friedman.

Who they spoke to (Iraqi and US govt mostly).
http://www.usip.org/isg/isg_meetings.pdf

(at least they spoke to Murtha).

And Kinsley's editorial.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/13/AR2006111301058.html

Get Jim in Here, Pronto!

By Michael Kinsley
Tuesday, November 14, 2006; Page A31

If I told you that there was something in Washington called the Baker commission but didn't tell you what it was about, you still could probably name many of its members. If you are of a certain age, you might wonder, "Jim or Howard?" And you might have a quibble or two.

Where is Dick Holbrooke? Does Sandra Day O'Connor's new availability mean that Madeleine Albright is out of luck from now on? Are they sure that Larry Eagleburger is still alive? But Vernon Jordan is there, along with Ed Meese and Alan Simpson and Lee Hamilton. This is one torch that has not been passed to a new generation, although former Virginia senator and presidential son-in-law Charles Robb (age 67) is a fresh face in the pool of Washington Wise Men. Welcome, Chuck.

...


So which is the Baker commission? It's got elements of both. Part of the idea, certainly, was to get the politicians over the hump of the election and give them something to say in the meantime. ("We desperately need new ideas and fresh thinking about Iraq and, indeed, the entire Middle East. I look forward to the recommendations of the Baker commission and urge them to interpret their mandate widely and boldly.") And part of the idea is to legitimize some impalatable solution. But the Baker commission may be nearly unique in that there is no obvious solution waiting to be imposed. People actually hope that it will come up with something that no one has thought of.

Good luck. The chance that this group of aging white men, plus Vernon Jordan and Sandra Day O'Connor, will come up with something original is not enormous. It's a nutty and not very attractive idea to turn an urgent issue of war and peace over to a commission.
...



Being a Washington Wise Man does not require much wisdom. Baker has a "conviction," said a Baker colleague quoted in The Post on Sunday, "that Iraq is the central foreign policy issue confronting the United States." Wow. Now there's an insight. Actually, it is a nice small insight into the Baker mentality that he apparently can imagine a war that is killing large numbers of young Americans every month but that is not our central foreign policy issue. Baker also believes that "the only way to address that issue successfully is to first build a bipartisan consensus." Now, that is a conviction you can sink your teeth into. People like Baker always favor a bipartisan consensus.

They don't really believe in politics, which is to say they don't really believe in democracy.

[e-mail]

[beachmom]

1. I don't mean to sound negative, but . . .

I think when we look back in history, this James Baker commission will be viewed as the direction the country took that allowed MORE soldiers to die for a mistake with no tangible gains other than to procrastinate the inevitability of our soldiers needing to redeploy out of Iraq.

I just have a very bad feeling about this. The "bad guys" in our own leadership may seem powerful now, but this war is going to take down more than the president. The whole damned DC establishment may be sunk, this thing is so bad. Look to the liberals and some of the freshmen to be the survivors long term.

[Democrafty]

2. I agree.

There was a time this could have added to the debate, but now I feel like it's being used as an escape from the debate.

[Mass]

4. You are unfortunately not negative, but realistic.

Read Kinsley's editorial, that I just added to my post, if you did not read it. The point is that they preferred choosing people who are in the news, but do not necessarily have an original view of the situation, than choosing people who could bring a real view, whether we agree with this view or not.

More even than the fact they ignore people with military experience in the Senate, like McCain or Kerry, it is the fact they DID NOT INTERVIEWED the ambassador of Iraq that gets to me. And the idea that Greenspan or Sandra Day O'Connor would be in any way qualified on this issue.

[beachmom]

5. "The only brain among them" is the Iraqi Ambassador

Khalilizad is a neocon for sure; but he's the only one who actually went to Iraq and try to fix the mess. The guy is tireless and brilliant, but as Kerry said, he can't do it all alone.

You're right -- what a joke the Baker commission is!!

[wisteria]

3. Will, kristol and Freidman? Unbelievable.

Seems like they are more concerned on how to spin this than resolving anything.