The long awaited “report” is now out, the President has been briefed and the mainstream media is on a feeding frenzy. Fasten your seatbelts troops; the MSN will help paint the “gloom and doom” picture in an effort to demoralize the American public, our allies and the indirect consequences of “bad news” from home. National Public Radio (NPR) is describing the report and conditions in Iraq as “grave and deteriorating.” This term was used several times in one short news on NPR. They want to make sure we get it.

I wrote about the “Iraq Study Group” here, with an eye on the qualifications of “the group.” The infamous “deadline” isn’t until 2008 but it’s still a deadline, misunderstanding how patient and relentless terrorists and extremists are.

Here are some excerpts to ponder:

• The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved.
• Our most important recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly. We believe that these two recommendations are equally important and reinforce one another. If they are effectively implemented, and if the Iraqi government moves forward with national reconciliation, Iraqis will have an opportunity for a better future, terrorism will be dealt a blow, stability will be enhanced in an important part of the world, and America’s credibility, interests and values will be protected.
• If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe. A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq’s government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shiite clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized.
• During the past nine months we have considered a full range of approaches for moving forward. All have flaws. Our recommended course has shortcomings, but we firmly believe that it includes the best strategies and tactics to positively influence the outcome in Iraq and the region.
• The United States should immediately launch a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region. This diplomatic effort should include every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq’s neighbors. Iraq’s neighbors and key states in and outside the region should form a support group to reinforce security and national reconciliation within Iraq, neither of which Iraq can achieve on its own.
• Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interesting in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively.

• The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations. By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq. At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams and in training, equipping, advising, force protection and search and rescue. Intelligence and support efforts would continue. A vital mission of those rapid reaction and special operations forces would be to undertake strikes against al Qaeda in Iraq.

Once again, what qualifies this group of people to make recommendations on military operations and terror on the ground? Donald Rumsfeld is leaving but his final memo has more information and didn’t cost millions of dollars from a feckless group of pundits to put on paper. The people who are qualified to make decisions are in place. It’s easy to watch the evening news, examine reports and claim them to be relevant.

The Iraq Study Group has only provided ammunition to “cut and run” Democrats and the politicians who straddle the fence to ensure their reelection. This group is a mistake and doesn’t solve the war on terror, secular violence and certainly is unqualified to recommend military options.

The Baker-Hamilton group believes diplomacy, in code, placating the enemy states of Iran and Syria will somehow ease tensions in the Middle East. The report is no more than grandstanding from a bunch of ex-political advisors and lawyers who wish to remain relevant and in the public eye.

We would be better off if the group members remained either retired or in the private sector. They have no business meddling in the affairs where they have only opinion and zero experience.

I’ve heard this group called a “Blue Ribbon Panel”, so maybe they should move to a county fair or join a 4-H category and earn a real blue ribbon.