NYT: The Sunshine Boys Can’t Save Iraq (Rich nails it hard again)

[Aviation Pro]

Probably the most gifted of all the Times writers, Frank Rich calls the ISG what it is, a sham of a burlesque of two shakes of a scam.

The administration must go, the sooner it does the quicker we can fix the Little Monkey poo fest.

Mods, please forgive the posting of the whole article, but these are extraordinary times.


By FRANK RICH
IN America we like quick fixes, closure and an uplifting show. Such were the high hopes for the Iraq Study Group, and on one of the three it delivered.

The report of the 10 Washington elders was rolled out like a heartwarming Hollywood holiday release. There was a feel-good title, “The Way Forward,” unfortunately chosen as well by Ford Motor to promote its last-ditch plan to stave off bankruptcy. There was a months-long buildup, with titillating sneak previews to whip up anticipation. There was the gala publicity tour on opening day, starting with a President Bush cameo timed for morning television and building to a “Sunshine Boys” curtain call by James Baker and Lee Hamilton on “Larry King Live.”

The wizard behind it all was the public relations giant Edelman, which has lately been recruited by Wal-Mart to put down the populist insurgency threatening its bottom line. Edelman’s vice chairman is Michael Deaver, the imagineer extraordinaire of the Reagan presidency, and “The Way Forward” had a nostalgic dash of that old Morning-in-America vibe. In The Washington Post, David Broder gushingly quoted one member of the group, Alan Simpson, musing that “immigration, Social Security and all those other things that have been hung up for so long” might benefit from similar ex-officio bipartisanship. Only in Washington could an unelected panel of retirees pass for public-policy Viagra.

Mr. Simpson notwithstanding, the former senator who most comes to mind is Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York. In the early 1990’s he famously coined the phrase “defining deviancy down” to describe the erosion of civic standards for what constitutes criminal behavior. In 2006, our governmental ailment is defining reality down. “The Way Forward” is its apotheosis.

This syndrome begins at the top, with the president, who has cut and run from reality in Iraq for nearly four years. His case is extreme but hardly unique. Take Robert Gates, the next defense secretary, who was hailed as a paragon of realism by Washington last week simply for agreeing with his Senate questioners that we’re “not winning” in Iraq. While that may be a step closer to candor than Mr. Bush’s “absolutely, we’re winning” of late October, it’s hardly the whole truth and nothing but. The actual reality is that we have lost in Iraq.

That’s what Donald Rumsfeld at long last acknowledged, between the lines, as he fled the Pentagon to make way for Mr. Gates. The most revealing passage in his parting memo listing possible options for the war was his suggestion that public expectations for success be downsized so we would “therefore not ‘lose.’ ” By putting the word lose in quotes, Mr. Rumsfeld revealed his hand: the administration must not utter that L word even though lose is exactly what we’ve done. The illusion of not losing must be preserved no matter what the price in blood.

--------------------------------------
EDIT: COPYRIGHT. PLEASE POST ONLY
4 OR 5 PARAGRAPHS FROM THE COPYRIGHTED
NEWS SOURCE PER DU RULES AND ALSO PROVIDE
A LINK TO THE SOURCE.

[ToolTex]

1. We said something similar when we crossed the 1,000 dead solder line in Iraq.

Now as we approach the 3,000 line, does anyone remember that this war could also continue until we match the 58,000 lost in Viet Nam.

George, bring our troops home now, or resign now, or we will impeach you. The people have spoken and so have the grownups of both parties.

[gulfcoastliberal]

2. K&R.....nt

[badgerpup]

3. K & R

:kick:

[Faygo Kid]

4. Drudge highlighting this; FReepers foaming. Rich is right: We have lost

The right is becoming unhinged as even most of them can no longer deny the reality. I have shifted my position from a gradual withdrawal to an out-now position over the past couple of months, as it no longer matters how long we stay - it's over, over there. FReepers are reduced to hurling personal insults at Frank Rich with no - not even one - attempt to refute the substance of his position (well, that's the usual M.O. in FReeperland, admittedly). Anyway, events are moving quickly now, as the people are in front of our leaders (as usual). FReepers comment, for those fascinated by the sociological phenomenon of a group psyche collapsing: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1751133/posts

[Tom Joad]

5. Of course, Johnson could have just withdrawn the troops and saved

over a million lives. But he didn't. Instead he continued the brutal US military occupation. Genocide is part of Johnson/Nixon's legacy.

And the US congress, now led by Democrats (in a few weeks) can just end funding for the war, and force Bush to withdraw the troops....

But will they?

[ellenfl]

8. no, not a chance. they will not withhold funding from the troops. eom

[w4rma]

10. There will be conditions for the funding for the first batch. Then the next conditions will be

tougher. And tougher. And 2008 will have come and gone.

I hope what I just said is wrong.

[Skittles]

11. keep on doing the same thing, hoping for a different result

insanity at its finest

[Auntie Bush]

6. Three cheers to the OP and the Mods for this important article.

I agree, we lost this damn war several years ago. Let's get out before more true American blood is spilled. Boy, the people that lose loved ones over there from now on are really going to be extra pissed. So far our troops have died valiantly trying to win an un-winnable war for our nit-wit president. From now on they will die trying to save the cowardly divider in chief's legacy and presidency...not our nation's honor or for the lives of the Iraqis'. They are doomed to die by the hundreds of thousands no matter if we stay or leave. There is no good way to end this war. It was doomed before it started and if we had a president with any intelligence (his brain reminds me of a walnut... size and shape) or knowledge of history...he never would have gotten us in to this god awful, disgusting embarrassing mess of a non-war.

Bush must be DRIVEN out of office...by any means necessary. If we can get his opinion polls into singe digits...and his own party asked him to leave or face public humiliation and nothing but ridicule from all media...including fox...maybe he'd quit and we could be rid of him without having to go through all the expense of impeachment.

[truth2power]

12. Exceptional post, Auntie..

It clearly lays out the untenable situation in which we find ourselves. Bush's walnut-sized brain included.

I couldn't agree with you more: BUSH THE CRIMINAL MUST BE DRIVEN OUT OF OFFICE by any means necessary. Whether the Democrats will have the gonads to undertake that task remains to be seen. I am not optimistic.

And by the way, those lines from Kipling's poem, "The Naulahka," have been running thru my head for a couple of years, now:

"And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear: 'A fool lies here who tried to hustle the east.'"

[eridani]

7. There is one thing to be really, really grateful for

Given the original goal of the war--a permanent military presence in the Middle East to control the oil there--the commission chose to not mention the one tactic that could yet achieve that goal, namely genocide on a massive scale. It's perfectly doable militarily, but thank heavens it seems to be off the table.

[necso]

9. You're over the paragraph limit,

but this paragraph (which effectively discredits the so-called "war-hawks") is worth repeating (or leaving in, if your post gets edited):

"The only recommendations that might alter that reality, however evanescently, come not from 'The Way Forward' but from its critics on the right who want significantly more troops and no withdrawal timetables whatsoever. But a Pentagon review leaked to The Washington Post three weeks ago estimates that a true counterinsurgency campaign would 'require several hundred thousand additional U.S. and Iraqi soldiers as well as heavily armed Iraqi police,' not the 20,000 or so envisioned as a short-term booster shot by John McCain."

And that would be several hundred thousand reliable, capable, well-armed combat-troops/police. (Our tooth-to-tail ratio is not that great.)

But there's some small possibility (very small) that other troops (not US/British/Iraqi) could be had, given certain conditions and inducements -- and perhaps only for "holding" duty, once an area had been "pacified" by US/Iraqi forces.

However, this promises to be a long, bloody and otherwise-costly course -- and the American people probably do not have the will for it. And it would require making life better for the Iraqi people (and keeping it that way; as opposed to relying on "free market" ideology), great diplomacy, real vision, etc -- all of which the neocons are incapable of (by their very natures). (It might also entail tossing aside the current Iraqi "government". -- And when we did eventually leave or dramatically reduce forces, things might (would, imo) quickly fall apart anyway.)

Myself, I'm for withdrawal/redeployment -- while charting a course that would make Tokugawa Ieyasu's head spin (due to its ruthlessness, craft and cunning), in order to help direct things towards some possible end, one that is less bad than the others (which it's still to early to see) -- like maybe an Iraq run by nationalists.

(It wouldn't hurt to repeatedly point-out that we intend to leave completely as soon as we deem possible -- or when we realize the fruitlessness of our efforts.)

[yurbud]

13. "more troops" reminds me of Pentagon Papers: more troops = more resentment & resistance

[The Count]

14. A link would still be nice for future reference

[Aviation Pro]

15. Link to article....

...sorry, I thought the mods would let it pass.

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/opinion/10rich.html?_r=1&hp&oref=login