I smell a rat. A "new panel" is being formed to "investigate" the Iraq war policy:
Ten prominent Americans, including former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, are forming a bipartisan group to assess the Bush administration's policies in Iraq and political and economic developments in the troubled country.
Something tells me this "new panel" is being pushed by leftists who would like to put an "official" imprimatur on criticism about America's policy on Iraq.
After all, there is nothing to "investigate" about America's Iraq policy. We know exactly what it is. We will stay in Iraq until the Iraqi people are able to defend themselves. That's not complicated. There's nothing to "investigate" or take a "fresh look" at -- unless your agenda is not to investigate, but to attack the current policy.
This "new panel" sounds vaguely similar to a "war cabinet" proposed by Joseph Lieberman, also a great idea in theory but dubious in practice. Here's what I wrote about that: Lieberman's War Cabinet Proposal: Nice Idea But Will the Scorpions Cooperate?:
The problem is that there are clearly some in Washington who would continue to place their own political advancement ahead of the nation's security. They would simply transfer their partisanship to the new cabinet. They would attempt to spin the headlines coming out of any such war cabinet for partisan political advantage -- the very thing Lieberman quite rightly wants to avoid.
This proposed "bipartisan" panel also reminds me of the "unofficial 9/11 Commission," the primary purpose of which appeared to be to attack the administration for partisan political reasons. I wrote about that here: Unofficial 9/11 Commission Earns an "F" Report Card. Here's an excerpt:
It appears that the dominant agenda of the remnants of the 9-11 commission at this point is to undermine the administration for partisan political reasons. That earns the unofficial 9/11 commission an "F" grade in my book.
The victims of the 9/11 attacks, and their families, deserve better.
New panel on Iraq war policy? We have a perfectly good "panel" on Iraq war policy. It's called the White House, the Pentagon, and the United States Armed Forces.
We don't need another "panel," or "cabinet," or "commission," or "unofficial commission."
Carping about the policy on the Iraq war will not help win the war in Iraq. It will simply serve to aid and embolden America's enemies. That's a loser's strategy.
Update 3/16/06: The new panel has now been "unveiled," whatever that means.
Captain's Quarters is appalled by the whole idea of yet another "independent commission":
Uh-huh. Let me get this straight. The panel's leaders consist of the man who helped the US stop the ground war in Iraq in 1991, allowing Saddam to remain in power, and the man who co-chaired the Commission that managed to ignore Able Danger, arrests of Iraqi intelligence agents in Germany during the period when three of the four 9/11 pilots flew back to Hamburg , and numerous other vital facts and developments. And the panel should come up with a fair and unbiased look at the war in Iraq?
Color me highly unimpressed.
If Congress wants to investigate the Iraq war, then Congress itself should do so. Appointing people with no public accountability for the conduct of their investigation does not free them to tell the truth -- it allows them to pursue their own agendas without hindrance. One only needs to recall the inclusion of Jamie Gorelick on the 9/11 panel to recall how the most signiificant barrier to information sharing got almost completely ignored by that commission, and how critics that demanded her replacement got ignored.
He's right. Lee Hamilton, one of the co-chairs of this new commission, also co-chaired the 9/11 Commission. And we know how independent, unbiased, and helpful THAT commission turned out to be.
If you want any more proof that this is a set-up, check out this detail from CNN's report linked by Captain Ed:
Wolf said Congress will appropriate $1.3 million to fund the group, which will work under the auspices of the congressionally chartered U.S. Institute for Peace and three think tanks.
I cannot think of a worse idea than setting up a Congressionally-appointed committee of unaccountable members, supervised by "think tanks," to officially second-guess our nation's war policy while the war is still underway.
How about if we allow our war policy to be set by the President of the United States and Commander in Chief elected by the American people, along with his Cabinet and the United States Armed Forces?
And if Congress wants to control the purse strings for the Iraq war, as is its right, or change America's war policy dramatically, as is its right, let it have the courage to do so itself rather than setting up another "independent" commission full of unaccountable members who will likely do little more than hurl partisan attacks.
This is a great strategy if you want to produce sound bites critical of America's Iraq war policy that will then be repeated in all their glory on Al-Jazeera and in Bin Laden's next video. If you want to actually win a war and bring America's troops home safely, it's a very bad idea.
Further Update 3/16/06: Hugh Hewitt weighs in with some scathing remarks about the whole idea. His post is worth reading.
Baker is probably on the Panel to provide a good dissenting view.
The problem with that is it gives the panel a bit of legitimacy, which of course it doesn't have.
I lay this latest boo boo at the WH. No way Baker would have joined the thing without checking first. The WH should have learned, after the special prosecutor debacle over the Palme affair.....these things are rarely to find truth, but either either a political gimmick (current subject) or an exercise in CYA (9-11 commission).
paul
Posted by: paul | March 16, 2006 at 02:09 PM
I think the commission is a good iidea. To say this is being pushed by the left ignores the fact that the President himself is looking for a new direction and is more open to listening to others now that his own panel's strategy is largely seen as a failure. The war will be underway for some time and nasty surprise that Iraq is not moving towards becoming a liberal democracy as promised demands a fresh approach and a change in direction.
Posted by: Fox | March 16, 2006 at 05:04 PM
While I think you are personally well-intentioned, I think you will realize, if you think about it, that this is not exactly a bipartisan move. It is an anti-Commander-in-Chief move.
If the President is indeed looking for "a new direction" and "open to listening to others" (and I have no doubt he's open to good ideas), I'm sure he'd much prefer private advice rather than the public flogging that some members of the panel will no doubt attempt to deliver.
Private advice is always welcome. Public "advice" is an attempt to gain political leverage over the President.
The American people elected George W. Bush as President and Commander in Chief, not James Baker or Lee Hamilton or purported "think tanks."
Now if you think we are doomed to failure in Iraq, then setting up a panel to pick apart the President's war strategy makes sense.
If you believe that all that stands between us and victory in Iraq is time, determination and persistence, then this new panel makes no sense at all.
Posted by: Gina Cobb | March 16, 2006 at 05:40 PM