From an article in today’s Washington Post about the Iraq Study Group, and “centrism”:
Some participants said the Iraq Study Group should be a model of how to bring the nation’s wise men and women together to inject fresh perspective in solving the country’s biggest problems. But others said that it, too, had serious flaws.
Despite Iraq’s steady deterioration since the panel began its work in April, it moved at a deliberate pace — too slow, in the view of some participants. The panel spent months analyzing U.S. policy and Iraq’s situation. Experts, who were divided into four subgroups, met among themselves to answer a list of questions from the 10 commissioners — five Republicans and five Democrats.
Speaking purely for myself (as always), this level of work should have been done before we invaded Iraq, not after… but it wasn’t, and here we are. I’m glad, frankly, that someone’s actually taking the time needed to examine the problems thoroughly, and I’m also pleased to read this:
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 read that as a rejection of,
“Let’s keep pushing to forcibly expand democracy. Eventually it’ll take hold, if we just wait long enough….”
and also of,
“This is an unmitigated disaster. Everybody should come home right now. Today, if not sooner. I’m really sorry about the mess… See ya….”
But I’m confounded by some of the blogospheric reaction:
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.
For the record — I often read, quote, and link Glenn Greenwald. I don’t always agree with him, but I appreciate his willingness to call out extreme positions on the right — just as I appreciate some writers who do the same from the other side. However, Glenn (and others) are missing something important here: many people think that simply pulling out of Iraq is a total abdication of our responsibility as Americans.
No, I didn’t vote for Bush. Yes, I knew long before we ever went into Iraq that it was a really stupid idea. Americans are rightfully ashamed of our actions there. This was a massive foreign policy screw-up.
And none of that lets us off the hook. It was our government, folks, that did this — yours and mine; we can’t just walk away because we’re sad and angry. To do so would be every bit as irresponsible and immoral as the misguided policies that brought us to this point.
The Iraqi Humpty Dumpty didn’t fall off the wall; he was pushed. We cannot put him together again as he was, nor as we wish him to be — but we can’t leave him lying there with his yolk spattered all over the ground, either.
If we do decide that the only solution is to leave, it can’t be because the discussion started there, but because it ended there.
As much as I hate the idea, and as angry as this makes me, our involvement in Iraq may last for a very long time — generations, even — and the non-extremist approach means we’re going to have to deal with Iraq’s neighbors, make concessions, commit unbelievable amounts of money (yes, more…), and give up these extreme positions absolutist notions of “stay the course” or “come home now”.
We can’t do either.