Now that the graybeards on the Baker-Hamilton commission have proposed consensus solutions for the Iraq war, they should be kept on to tackle entitlements, energy policy, health care and education – domestic issues more appropriate to bipartisan deal-making. Seriously.
The prestigious Iraq Study Group, headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., did a magnificent job of reaching unanimous agreement by splitting differences and finding middle-ground solutions.
A bipartisan panel of such distinguished elder statesmen could very well outline the “grand bargains” it will take to break domestic logjams.
For instance, to finance the retirement of the baby-boom generation and achieve long-term fiscal balance, we need a deal by which Democrats agree to shave promised Medicare and Social Security benefits and Republicans agree to increase revenues.
It’s just the sort of thing that former Democratic White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson (Wyo.) could put their minds to. The same goes for education. Democratic lawyer Vernon Jordan and retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor could fashion and sell the bargain under which teachers get more pay but have to accept being promoted, hired and fired on the basis of performance.
War is another matter. The Iraq Study Group – composed entirely of civilians – basically produced a plan designed to split the differences between America’s hostile political factions, not produce victory in Iraq.
By design, in fact, the group’s report does not mention President Bush’s oft-repeated goal – “victory” – or the common Democratic term, “quagmire.” It proposes to achieve “success” in Iraq, using Bush’s new definition: an Iraq that can sustain, defend and govern itself and serve as an ally in the war on terror. It avoids Bush’s old goal, democratizing the Middle East.
The panel dismisses all three of the most politically disputed strategies for Iraq – “precipitate withdrawal,” “staying the course” and “more troops for Iraq” – in exactly 14 lines of type each.
Then, it recommends a “way forward” that calls for removal of all U.S. combat troops by early 2008, “subject to unexpected developments in the country.”
But it also envisions maintaining a “considerable military presence in the region,” including unspecified numbers of combat troops in Iraq for force-protection, training and anti-terrorist activity.
The evident, but unstated, purpose of the troop withdrawals is to lower American casualty rates and prevent a total collapse of domestic support for the war, which in turn could lead to “precipitate withdrawal” and a series of dire consequences that the group foresees, including regional civil war and a triumph for Iran and other radical Islamists.
The group tried to buy time and patience among Americans for a one-year transfer of combat responsibility to Iraqis and to prod the Iraqi government into making the reforms necessary to avoid all-out civil war. Members of the panel observed correctly that a president can’t run a war without domestic support.
However, in war, what’s more important than consensus is decisive leadership. You win wars or you lose them. You advance or retreat. By muddling that choice and by providing the media with opportunities to say that Bush’s policies were “repudiated,” the group has made the president’s task more difficult.
As Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said when the report came out, it is really recommending “retreat – the most difficult military maneuver of all to execute.” McCain – along with an impressive list of retired generals, some of whom opposed the war in the first place – contend that what’s needed is an increase in American troop levels to decisively establish security, as well as a declaration that the United States will not abandon the mission until Iraq is stable, something that could take five or more years to occur.
