God Favors the Bold

Today, it's all about the Iraq Study Group. They'll post their report this morning and everyone will pick it apart. The general outlines have been reported. More training. Pressure on the Iraqis to get organized. A slow withdrawal. Talks with Iran and Syria.

None of it really matters. What matters more is what happened yesterday, and what it says about what will happen tomorrow. None of that was very confidence-inspiring.

First, let's dispense with the crap. Naturally, the Associated Press led its report on the Armed Services Committee hearing with Robert Gates saying we're not winning, pairing this with a pre-election Bush statement that of course we are. A cheap political gotcha from a wire service that is supposed to be delivering us raw, useful non-partisan information. In fact, Gates said, when he had a chance to explain himself, we're neither winning nor losing. It was one of the least relevant things he said all day.

As political matters go, I was more interested to hear a former CIA director still thinks we had to invade Iraq in 2003. That was also a relevant strategic issue, after all. The sanctions regime was falling apart and Saddam with a nuke would have become an even bigger problem than Saddam without a nuke. Every major intelligence agency in the world believed he had nukes, as did Gates himself. Let's hope this, unchallenged yesterday, will finally shut up the revisionist "Bush Lied" Left, though I'm not holding my breath on that. Politically, this issue is more germaine than gotcha questions about whether we are winning or losing. The fact is, we always had to do this, and we still need to. Losing is not an option. And I would have rather heard this bureacrat answer that way directly, when Carl Levin pressed him with the cheap shot.

Of Iran, Gates said, well, the Iranians have watched and learned from the Kim Jong Il Experience. KJI is a bigger nuisance with a nuke and commands more attention than he did without. Iran with a nuke will be an even bigger problem than Iran without a nuke. The Iran problem today is precisely the Saddam problem we would have faced had we not invaded in 2003. So we're looking at one Mideast nuke problme instead of two.

The business about whether Gates thinks Iran would use a nuke on Israel: I don't particularly like the idea of a SecDef who has a lacksadaisical approach to pariah states with nukes. He seems to think they'd rather use it to angle than to destroy -- typical CIA thinking -- but either scenario is a totally unacceptable situation, given the Iranian regime's track record of support for terrorism and proxy wars, and Gates recognized that. Multiply Iran's past record by about 1,000 when Iran is nuclearly armed and perceives itself to be untouchable.

Gates said he thinks there are no new ideas on Iraq and sounded a little downcast or exasperated about it. Technically, he's probably right. The options are on the table. Pull out fast or slow. Boost advisors. Boost troop levels light or figure out a way to boost trrop levels heavy. Talk to Iran and Syria. Figure out on what terms, with what credibility, you talk to Iran and Syria, to what end.

He didn't commit to any particular course, said he wanted to talk to the generals, though he seemed to suggest he was OK with the idea of fewer troops in Iraq. Maybe that's telling the Senate Armed Services Committee what it wants to hear right now.

But he was essentially right about new ideas and Iraq. The only thing really missing in Iraq right now is the leadership to choose the correct set of options and execute them effectively. I didn't hear someone who sounded like he was the guy to do that. But he gets the benefit of a doubt. We have no choice but to give him that. He's what we get.

I'm no Rumsfeld fan, but he believed in himself and he believed things, and he ran with it, which is why I was willing for so long to give him the benefit of a doubt, despite diagreeing with his light approach. Gates delivered a safe, textbook performance on how to sail through a confirmation committee, and his utter un-Rumsfeldness gave him a pass. I hope it was calculated. I just have a feeling we've got a caretaker here, and apparatchik. Please prove me wrong, Gates. Be bold. You've got the floor.

An important note: The Secretary of Defense is not the sole arbiter of our policy on Iraq and its neighbors. The Secretary of State has an iron in this fire, and then there is the President of the United States. Rumsfeld bullied his way into total control. But here is an opportunity for one of these other parties to exert some leadership. Of course, the obstacle to that could well be Dick Cheney, who's been very quiet lately and who, you may recall, I have said needed to go.

I have an uneasy feeling about all of this. But after Iraq Study Group has its say and all the talk shows are done with it, then we'll hear from the president, and then we will know how it is going to be.

Here is Powerline's take on the hearing.

Powerline takes another look and sees Hillary taking the low road.

Captain Ed is surprised by the brevity of Gates' bungee appearance and the unanimity it inspired.

Blue Crab is an anti-AP jihadi after my own heart.

Confederate Yankee is also irked with a certain lack of perspective.

The Democratic Daily, not surprisingly, lacks perspective. She likes the way Ted "Plot Dreamed Up in Texas" Kennedy makes like he's all about supporting the troops and makes a cynical numbers game out of this.

Like a true Carpetbagger, this one is in the market for a cheap bill of goods.

At the Wideawake Cafe they're serving up the Pepto after a bad reaction to Gates' short order appearance.