1) I don’t really understand why and how the Baker Commission came into being in the first place. Was it some sort of political Immaculate Conception that brought this turgid collection of dinosaurs together, or does anyone actually bear responsibility for this sham?

Something called the United States Institute for Peace formed the Iraq Study Group after being prodded to do so by “interested members of Congress.” The White House welcomed its development and pledged to cooperate with it, but what actually happened behind the scenes is anybody’s guess.

2) That’s a little weird, isn’t it? An Institute for Peace formed a Commission whose ostensible purpose was to tell us how to fight a war?

It’s downright Orwellian. But the “Peace” in the Institute’s title did serve to tip the Commission’s hand. Here they were, purportedly trying to figure out how to fight a war, and none of the commission members had any significant military experience. What’s more, the expertise of people who actually know a thing or two about fighting insurgencies, both academics and soldiers, was not called upon.

3) But the Commission did go to Iraq. You got to give them props for that.

They never left the Green Zone. Since they never left the Green Zone, they have no first hand knowledge of what it’s like out in the s**t. Not that that’s a hanging offense. All I’m saying is that the trip to the Green Zone was a P.R. stunt. Whatever knowledge the Study Group members acquired by going to Iraq, they could have more easily and efficiently gathered via conference call.

4) If some private group formed the Commission, why was it given such wide deference by all political actors?

That’s really a puzzler. Normally you appoint one of these blue-ribbon commissions when everyone knows what the right thing to do is but no one has the political stones to step forward and do it. So both major parties form a bi-partisan commission to study the matter and reach the conclusions that everyone with half-a-brain has already reached. In the process, everyone gets political cover.

For instance, someday soon we’ll probably have a blue ribbon commission appointed to figure out how to “save” Social Security. That blue ribbon commission, after months of serious study, will conclude that the national retirement age has to be raised to 70 years old. After all, the existing age of 65 was established back in the 1930’s when the average Social Security recipient would have been dead for nine years before his benefits kicked in.

Everyone will wring their hands over this pronouncement and express chagrin, but they will express a sense of powerlessness; the almighty Commission will have spoken. And, voila, Social Security will be saved.

5) So why didn’t that same process make sense here?

Because there’s no consensus among thinking people about what needs to be done in Iraq. Even on the left and on the right, there are sharp intramural skirmishes on the matter. So the Study Group’s search for a consensus was pointless. Just because they could get ten washed up former power players in a room to agree to a bunch of mindless and wishful banalities doesn’t mean that the country or the rest of the political establishment was hungry for someone to give them cover to exercise their conclusions. In short, this entire exercise was idiotic.

6) That’s kind of personal and harsh, don’t you think? These are estimable people who volunteered their time. Even if you disagree with them, don’t you think you should at least be respectful of their efforts?

No. These are estimable people who hungered for a re-entry into the political limelight. For chrissakes, they arranged a photo-shoot at Vanity Fair to coincide with the Report’s release. While they may not have received financial compensation for their efforts, they received for them what is an even higher form of payment – access back to the center stage of national events.

Besides, the report could have been so much more. It could have dealt with the serious menace of Radical Islam – it didn’t. It could have honestly appraised Iranian ambitions – it didn’t. It could have identified the U.N.’s fundamental uselessness – it didn’t.

7) But isn’t it possible that the Commission is playing chess and you’re just too dumb to realize it? Perhaps they had access to a veritable cornucopia of classified information that the rest of us haven’t seen.

Negative. Where have you been the past few years? We have virtually no human intelligence on Iran and the rest of the radical Islamic world. The Commission had the same raw data to deal with as the rest of us, and for that matter being a non-government entity presumably wouldn’t have had access to any valuable classified information even if such a thing existed.

8) How about some of the Study Group’s lamest conclusions, like Iran doesn’t want to have chaos in the region and would support the birth of a peaceful, democratic and presumably friendly-to-the-West Iraq? What gives there? How could the commissioners be so obtuse?

I think that question gets us to the heart of the matter. The Study Group thought their mandate was the same as the typical bi-partisan blue ribbon commission which is to “find” a pre-agreed upon consensus. Here, they felt the pre-agreed upon consensus was, regarding the war in Iraq: “Make it end!!!”

But problematically, the Iraq war could end tomorrow but our problems with the Islamists in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. would continue and worsen unless we forcefully addressed them. Given the prominence of the Study Group, it could have actually done a world of good and talked to people like Bernard Lewis and cautioned the country that regardless of what happens in Iraq – victory, defeat or stalemate – the struggle is just beginning.

9) That wouldn’t have been a very popular sentiment.

No it wouldn’t have. And that’s why the Commission avoided it like John Kerry avoids potential wives with less than a billion in the bank.

10) At least the President seems like he’s going to ignore the report. That’s good news, isn’t it?

Yes, it is. He’ll also have to ignore the media fawning over the report, but he should be able to do that as well. The real tough thing will be building a consensus for the conclusions the report should have reached but didn’t. The president has shown little appetite for taking on that task the last few years.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.