The Myth of the "Wise Old Men"

So the Bush administration is (purportedly) going to consider the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, or Baker-Hamilton Commission, as it's sometimes called. No one is saying very much about what will actually be in the ISG's December report, and, at this point, it's not clear to me what the ISG can say. There are really no good options in Iraq at this point. The U.S. can begin withdrawing, in which case the country will (unarguably) collapse into an even more violent civil war. That's not a policy success. Or we can stay, indefinitely, in which case the country will (arguably, although I think so) continue along in the current violent civil war. Or we can stay and send more troops.

Or maybe not. This position faces two major difficulties. First, there really aren't more troops to send, not in the short-term, and no plans to increase the number of troops available into the future. Second, it's never clear to me what these troops are supposed to do, once in country. It's not like our forces in Iraq are fighting some kind of traditional war. It's a combo training and counter-insurgency operation. So just putting more troops into "the battle" is not really a solution. (Some war hawks talk like, with troops, we could "crush" the "terrorists." This is clearly just silly chest-thumping.)

So, my sense is that the ISG isn't going to say very much. Certainly not going to say anything we haven't heard before--maybe from the Democrats, even. Some of the ideas being floated sound like Kerry's proposals in 2004, like a regional summit. And I don't believe that the administration will change course based on the report. It has dug in so far, with Stay the Course, and with claiming that the only way to lose is to leave, that its options are limited. Bush has said that this will be a problem that his successor will have to solve, and that still seems right to me.

But it's fascinating how the Establishment and punditocracy (to the extent those are not the same thing) are falling all over themselves praising, in advance, the return of the "adults" like Baker and the new SecDef. Every time a U.S. president gets himself into trouble, the cry goes out in D.C. for that president to reach out to the "Wise Old Men."

But the Wise Old Men don't know what to do, either.

The interesting question is whether the Wise Old Men ever know what the troubled president they are supposed to help should do. I don't know-this is not my field. But given the present situation, I'm skeptical. Maybe what the Wise Old Men give you is a break in the bad news cycle; bringing them in makes you seem like you're responding to policy (and political) failure. Plus, the Establishment loves the silver backs. Because they are the Establishment.

Down with the Establishment!