I read the news today, oh boy

Examining the various analyses which have been posted today concerning the findings of the Iraq Study Group, one can easily see that there are two camps, with the second camp breaking into two very distinct groups. The first camp, made up of people like the Washington Post's David Broder, are collectively orgasming over the idea of a "consensus" view in the age of "polarized" politics. Broder's column today, "A Study in Comity," sags like a tired old man's waddle under the weight of words like "bipartisanship," "example," "civility," "coming together," "goodwill," and, of course, "consensus" (3 times). In what is basically the same article but presented as news analysis, three Post staff writers concur, although I can't figure out if their piece is more consensus circle-jerking or one of the greatest exercises in stealth snarkiness I've ever seen. The language is so hyperbolic as to be irony: an "all-star" panel, assembled for what would be "one of the most anticipated study groups in modern times" (says a lot...), traversed the world and consulted hundreds of sources, even putting their lives in danger "in bulletproof vests and helmets...avoid[ing] enemy rockets," in order to deliver a 96-page report in which "every line was carefully debated." (Well, I should hope. Imagine if they snuck in a throwaway line--"Edwin Meese sniffs butts!") Then, for some reason, the writers give us an image of the self-congratulatory Group members dining on "crab cakes, beef and souffle." The most telling bit, however, comes right after one particularly autoerotic "circle of friends" moment:

"Whether the end result will prove meaningful is another question."

Oh yeah, that's right: the point of this exercise was not for a bunch of septuagenarians to play Secret fucking Santa with each other, but to find a way to manage America's Massive Bloodbath, a.k.a Iraq. I know Broder has been waiting to use the word "bipartisanship" since the good old days when Democrats and Republicans could agree on Core Values (probably something to do with pinkos and queers), but unity means nothing when the by-product is worthless. I'm sure any ten of us, despite our preferences, could ultimately decide on a consensus dog turd. ("I rather like the shape of that one." "I'll never vote for that turd!" "Guys, look--here's a piece of shit we can all agree on!") But it's still a dog turd.

That brings us to the second camp: those who recognize that the counsels of this high and mighty team of know-nothings amount to sound and fury--well, more like wheezing and chiding--signifying nothing. These are almost too limitless to list, but see The Weekly Standard, The National Review, three articles at Slate, The Nation, The American Prospect, and countless pundits and bloggers--John Podhoretz, Matt Taibbi, Matt Yglesias, and Charles Krauthammer, to name a few. What you'll notice about this camp is that its members come from extreme ideological opposites--the first camp's nightmare. Their language is often similar, especially in its contempt. Here is hardcore neoconservative Podhoretz:

"Its members also reached a consensus view that Depends is a really fine brand of adult diaper, and that they love reruns of 'Murder, She Wrote.'"

And here's Rolling Stone's own anarchist, Taibbi:

"It's important, when you nominate your panel, to dig up the oldest, saggiest, rubberiest, most used-up political whores on the Eastern seaboard to take up your cause...Baker-Hamilton was a classic whore-panel in every sense."

Both groups say the ISG report doesn't break any new ground, and that its language is vague enough to please everyone but solve nothing. Well, there are a few particularly rabid conservatives who say that the Baker-Hamilton commission "emboldened our enemies abroad" or some bullshit, and they're bristling that the report would dare advise us to talk to Iran and Syria or engage in the "Palestinian question." Their biggest complaint, of course, is that the ISG says nothing about "more troops," which is the zombie-like mantra they keep repeating these days for lack of any other ideas.

Liberals, while perhaps enjoying a moment of schadenfreude as Bush is confronted with something he would rather avoid (and this happens so very rarely), complain that the language of the report is sufficiently vague enough to lend itself to whatever plan Bush decides to pursue. They also decry the lack of a definitive timetable for withdrawal. The report merely says, "By the first quarter of 2008 … all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq." (2008--HMM, AN ELECTION YEAR.) Atrios agrees with Senator Russ Feingold that the commission is made up entirely of people who supported the war and consulted virtually no one who opposed it from the start. The main point of the liberal side seems to be that despite the fact that the Bush agenda has been struck a minor blow, everyone not living in Dodoland has known for months, even years, what the commission report says, and yet there is no substantial plan to address this common knowledge.

So, I think we can safely say that the first camp, despite this momentary victory, really has nothing to celebrate, while the latter camp has more force behind their arguments but are at complete odds on how to remedy the situation. Are we left, then, with nothing but power politics, with no "right" answer to be found, only ideological positions?

Well, no. There is a very clear difference between the conservatives and the liberals, and it has to do with realism. (I don't mean realism in the realpolitik sense; merely the everyday definition of "the empirical facts of the world as they stand.") The Broderite first camp is what we might call a-realistic. In a sense this is the most reckless and solipsistic camp, because they don't care a whit for the facts on the ground, only that Ten True Americans get together and diddle each other and call it progress. They possess an odd conception of "pragmatism" in which the goal is not to actually get anything done, but rather simply to reify the term "consensus" to the point where agreement, even on the most mundane and worthless details, is an end in itself.

The conservatives are anti-realistic. They do care about "reality," but it is a reality they have almost entirely constructed themselves. Some concede that the war is unwinnable, or at least that our current strategy is. But we simply cannot lose, because this would mean caving to our enemies, emboldening terrorists, what have you. This is the stubborn pride motive. The thymos motive, if you will. A small number think that the war is going just fine, but that some insidious subgroup has sabotaged the effort: usually the media, sometimes Democrats, sometimes the American people themselves (we're too squeamish, don't you know). As Bill Kristol humorously says, unintentionally of course: "Unfortunately, and dangerously, the president appears to have largely lost their confidence." Yet just a few sentences later he admits that the war has followed an "ineffective strategy." How, then, are we supposed to remain confident in Bush? Pure propaganda? Outright lying about the situation? I doubt Kristol has too many scruples with these tactics. He has a completely slavish and fetishistic attitude towards Bush. The picture he paints is one in which Bush can do no wrong, but that he has been misled by the Pentagon and the military. Now, if you ask me, this war has been nothing but a giant sundae in Bush's lap, open to no one except himself and a few close advisers, with the media and the opposition party largely conceding him that power until recently. The call for all power to be placed in the hands of the Supreme Leader is just a cultish reemphasis on what has been the trend all along. Again, anti-realistic. And then there's the big push for "more troops," which simply cannot be done. This is one of the more humorous (if the situation weren't so grim) parts of that Post article about the ISG:

"Robb was especially interested in sending more U.S. forces, according to one participant, and the panel considered proposals to deploy 100,000 to 200,000 additional troops. Ultimately, though, the panel discovered that there might be only 20,000 available, prompting vigorous discussion that led members to conclude that a substantial surge was unworkable."

Frederick Kagan has a long article in the Weekly Standard that tries to work with this low number. Basically, all he can recommend is sending inexperienced reserve troops and extending others' tours of duty. In other words, throwing undertrained, scared, and weary soldiers into a fight for a Grand and Noble Idea, when all experience shows us that this will not work. I guess you've got to admire Kagan's "patriotism," though... At best this tack is blind zeal, even delusion, at worst clinical insanity. In short, a world of anti-reality.

Liberals have reason to be angry. Their most basic proposals about timetables, which conform completely to the thinking of most Iraqis and now most Americans, simply will not be heard. Furthermore, those who have opposed the war from the start, or even those who have not but have consistently criticized its direction, and have been utterly vindicated since, are still considered personae non gratae. The make-up of the ISG reflects this. The wishywashyness of many Democrats, afraid to look like wimps because "Republicans are so strong on national defense," shows the pernicious side effects of this Washington-think. With the publication of this report, people like Hillary Clinton will wave it in the Administration's face while effectively doing nothing. According to Harry Reid's website, he has no timetable plan either. Nor Patrick Leahy. Nor Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Nor Carl Levin. Nor Barack Obama. Russ Feingold does, as does John Kerry, but these are our most "liberal," in many other places "unelectable" Senators. They will need much help and support, and our other politicians will need much badgering, if reality is to get its proper due.