Statement of Denial

New column on the Iraq Study Group:

I never had what you would call high hopes for the Iraq Study Group, but the report, now that it's in, is an almost physically sickening exercise in denial and evasion. The document itself comes in essentially two parts -- one is a review of the situation, the second a set of recommendations for moving forward. The first part is quite good. The second is a mess, a farrago of illogic that bears no real relationship to the analysis on which it was allegedly grounded.

Read the rest!

Comments

National reconciliation is possible. The Sri Lankan crisis was also composed of 3 competing groups and involved a government that also took part in the anonymous, nihilistic atrocities. Those 3 factions reached a stalemate and cease fire that held for many years. (The crisis is tentatively back.)

I don't know the reconciliation/cease fire in Sri Lanka it would have been possible with outsiders egging things on and profiting by someone else's suffering.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 12, 2006 6:03 PM

Great editorial, but if a *majority* "supported" the war originally, you have to expect that it will be some representation of the original majority who come up with a "new way forward" once things go to shit. They're not just going to suddenly hand over the reins to the peaceniks and admit they have no credibility left. It may be morally just to do so in this case, but not a realistic expectation in this universe. Nothing at all "shocking," in other words.

Posted by Bill | December 12, 2006 6:14 PM

Looks like prospect.org's SQL server is down.

Posted by chad okere | December 12, 2006 9:03 PM

re: Jeffrey - I don't think anyone believes national reconciliation will NEVER be possible in Iraq. The question is whether it will take a long-standing, enormously bloody civil war, as in Sri Lanka, to bring it about. If so, that's not very encouraging for US policymakers hoping to stay in Iraq.

re: Matt - great article. I wonder, though, what you would have liked to see in the Baker-Hamilton report if you believe (as I do) that the war is a failure and it's nearly impossible for us to effect national reconciliation. Should they simply have concluded we should leave as soon as possible? Or do you think there potentially IS a good or worthwhile plan for bringing about national reconciliation?

Posted by mitch | December 12, 2006 10:41 PM

Wow, Matt, did you just use "farrago"? That whole "irenic" thing with Ezra must have gotten the juices flowing.

Posted by nolaboyd | December 12, 2006 11:43 PM

Hmmm. Matt Yglesias and Richard Cohen are on the same page. Something is astir in the world.

Posted by SqueakyRat | December 13, 2006 6:53 AM