Seeing the Real (War) at Last.

“From now on I’ll be busy, Ain’t goin’ nowhere fast…” In what will hopefully amount to both a transformation in the debate over the war and a much-needed moment of clarity for the Dubya administration (alas, not likely), the Baker-Hamilton Commission officially releases its Iraq report (Exec Sum/Assessments). While perhaps vague on the details, it calls the situation in Iraq “grave and deteriorating” and argues that a “slide toward chaos” is a very real possibility (if, in fact, it hasn’t already happened.) “Despite a list of 79 recommendations meant to encourage regional diplomacy and lead to a reduction of U.S. forces over the next year, the panel acknowledges that stability in Iraq may be impossible to achieve any time soon.“

Gates of Fire.

“‘What we heard this morning was a welcome breath of honest, candid realism about the situation in Iraq,’ Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said during a midday break.” The Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously approved Robert Gates, who helped his case considerably by admitting the obvious fact that Iraq’s looking ugly, as Rumsfeld’s replacement at the Pentagon yesterday. Among those impressed with Gates was Slate‘s Fred Kaplan: “I’ve been watching defense secretaries in confirmation hearings for 30 years, off and on, but I don’t think I’ve seen any perform more forthrightly than Gates did this morning.” Update: Gates goes through, 95-2.

On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

“British intelligence. The term seemed redundant. It conjured up vast experience, levels upon levels of history, and, more than that, a cynical realism. When Americans were eschewing spying — ‘Gentlemen do not read each other’s mail,’ Secretary of State Henry Stimson said in 1929 — the Brits, uber-gents to a man, were steaming open envelopes galore, keeping a vast empire together with only a handful of spies, assassins, and dissolute diplomats who were not worth a damn after lunch.” In Slate, Richard Cohen asks, less facetiously than you might think, if James Bond might be responsible for the Iraq War.

Donald Ducks.

“Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.” Hewing closer to the McNamara paradigm than I’d earlier thought, Rumsfeld apparently questioned the Iraq war’s course on his way out the door. “Michael O’Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution, said the revelation of the memo would undercut any attempt by President Bush to defend anything resembling a ‘stay the course’ policy in Iraq.’When you have the outgoing secretary of defense, the main architect of Bush’s policy, saying it’s failing, that puts a lot more pressure on Bush.’”

A Legacy of Failure.

“Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history.” Columbia’s Eric Foner makes the case for Dubya as the worst president ever. Also weighing in on the question: Columbia PhD (and Slate columnist) David Greenberg, Douglas Brinkley, Michael Lind, and Vincent J. Cannato. (I discussed Dubya’s ranking briefly here.)

You Can’t Win with a Losing Hand.

“So the choice is between a terrible decision and one that is even worse. The terrible decision is just to begin leaving, knowing that even more innocent civilians will be killed and that we’ll be dealing with agitation out of Iraq for years to come. The worse decision would be to wait another year, or two, or three and then take that terrible course.” While parsing the forthcoming recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton commission (which, among other things, calls for Iraqification of the war (sound familiar?) and a near-complete troop withdrawal by early 2008), journalist and Blind into Baghdad author James Fallows changes his mind about the merits of maintaining our military presence in Iraq: “If it is not in our power to prevent these disasters, then it is better to do as little extra damage to ourselves as possible before they occur.”

This Wheel’s on Fire.

“To talk of grand schemes — partitioning Iraq or pressuring Maliki to form a ‘reconciliation government’ and amend his constitution — is, quite apart from their merits, plainly absurd, because we have no control over what the Iraqis do. We still have some control, though, over what we do and, maybe, over what we can persuade others to do with us.” In related news, Slate‘s Fred Kaplan, who seems to advocate hunkering down for the long haul over withdrawal, ponders what to do should the Maliki government in Iraq fall apart.

Gates, See Clifford.

“It’s not quite clear what George W. Bush wants Robert Gates to do. But it’s doubtful Gates would have come back to Washington, from his pleasant perch as president of Texas A&M, if the job description read ‘staying the course on Iraq.’” Invoking Clark Clifford to make his case, Slate‘s Fred Kaplan suggests what incoming SecDef Robert Gates may be able to accomplish over the next two years.

Heck of a Job, Karl.

“‘My job is not to be a prognosticator,’ he said. ‘My job is not to go out there and wring my hands and say, “We’re going to lose.” I’m looking at the data and seeing if I can figure out, Where can we be? I told the President, “I don’t know where this is going to end up. But I see our way clear to Republican control.”‘” Um, you do? It’s the Election 2006 post-mortem y’all have been waiting for: Karl Rove discusses the results of the midterms, and while he correctly cites the war and the GOP’s considerable corruption problem, he still doesn’t seem to get the big picture. Fine with me…Rove, just keep doin’ what you’re doin’. It worked splendidly. Update: More here.

Come to Daddy.

“I frankly think it’s a natural default from the failure of this advice of the people they had. It was impossible to argue anymore that some of the people who got us into this mess were giving good advice.” With Dubya’s White House in shambles, will Bush 41’s team ride to the rescue? Let’s hope so — I much prefer those guys to the militant neocon wing that’s been holding the reins the past six years. Still, as one observer pointed out: “Bush’s mind works differently from the normal political mind…Maybe these Baker guys can talk him off the ledge, but nobody’s done it yet.”